Talk:Carroll County Court House (New Hampshire)

Article moved unilaterally without justification

This article was just moved from its stable location at Carroll County Court House (New Hampshire) to the current location at Carroll County Court House (Ossipee, New Hampshire) [1] for no reason that is apparent to me. Moves to less concise titles need to be justified and are inherently controversial (as they go against policy) and so should go through WP:RM. What problem was solved with this move? How does the new title meet our naming criteria better than the old title? What is the justification? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm, the disambiguation of NRHP articles has generally not been controversial, esp. many created by Swampyank from the NRHP list-articles, which this is one. This article came to my attention because, AS YOU FULLY KNOW, i was looking for examples in New Hampshire relating to a BIG DISCUSSION THAT BORN2CYCLE OPENED AND PARTICIPATES FREQUENTLY IN. I don't think you need specific citations, do you? The problem solved was relatively minor, i.e. that it wasn't at (City, State) disambiguation, unlike most U.S. buildings having ambiguous names, and i fixed that. There is a redirect from the (State) name. I don't think any problem is caused by this move. --Doncram (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There has not been a definitive consensus regarding this as far as I know (see an old discussion here). In any case, this should be restored and go through the usual WP:RM process as it is obviously not non-controversial. --Polaron | Talk 20:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Don, please know from now on that any move which lengthens or complicates a title made for no reason other than to comply with some convention is likely to be controversial, and is certainly potentially controversial, and therefore should go through WP:RM. There is simply no reason to make titles longer like this, and this sets a bad precedent that is contrary to policy. This unilateral move without discussion should be reverted. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• There is clear and obvious objection to this move from at least two editors, so I went ahead and reverted it. Don, please go through WP:RM if you really want this article moved, and same with any similar situations. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#Courthouse_disambiguation. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)