Talk:Lackawanna County Children's Library

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is named after First Church of Christ, Scientist, but seems to be mostly about the Children's Library building. I understand this building was the former home to the church, but it seems a bit misleading to title it this way. I propose moving this page to Lackawanna County Children's Library and restructuring the article to be about the library while retaining the historical information about the church. Don't want to step on any toes, though, so please share your thoughts. -Tomdobb (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. This article is about an historic church building which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The fact that it is now a children's museum is really incidental. The article is not about the children's library. If you want an article about the children's library, then create one for it. clariosophic (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC) clariosophic (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with creating a new article is that it ends up being kind of redundant and confusing. Since the building featured in this article IS the children's library. The library is located in the building and the address listed in this article is for the children's library. The article really contains very little information about the church at all. The argument could be made that the fact that this was a church is incidental as it has nothing to do with the current function of the building.-Tomdobb (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. There isn't really anything about the library in the article, other than that it is there. The article isn't about its current function; it is about its historical significance. Make a redirect for not, that's enough unless the library is notable enough to deserve its own article and one is created. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point is that the current function of the building (library) and the purpose of this article (historical building) are not mutually exclusive. The article can (and probably should) be about both. The name as it is just comes off as misleading. For a similar situation, I'd cite Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel which is a historic railroad station previously referred to as Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Station. The article is under its current name though and details both its current status (hotel) and its historic significance. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) (which, admittedly, has become inactive) states buildings should use "Common name, plus the City / country where necessary." The article title is not the common name for this building. -Tomdobb (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move was done anyway without consensus

Someone has disregarded the above and moved it anyway. clariosophic (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NAME, specifically "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" and WP:NAMECON namely, "In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem." and these criteria for naming: "Is it the official current name of the subject? Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves?" Tomdobb (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to get into an edit war with you. Your arguments are not valid for the names of historical buildings. This building was built by and for Christian Scientists as a Christian Science Church building and it shares the architecture of many such buildings, which is why it is notable. clariosophic (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are my arguments not valid? Just because you say so? It may have been built for and by Christian Scientists, but it was sold in 1985 and operated as a library since then. It is no longer affiliated with Christian Scientists in any way, shape or form. It is a public library. Tomdobb (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tomdobb, on the name, it should be the most common name, whatever is easier for the reader to find, this doesn't mean don't mention the old name, do so in the lead, in bold, also add a redirect (of course).

However, rules, at least on Wikipedia are meant to be followed in spirit, and not always to the letter. In other words, we don't always have to follow rules, hence WP:IAR. Clearly, you could see that this move was contested not long ago, I think the courteous thing to do here would have been to discuss this change first, that way you could have seen if consensus changed consensus was established. As it is, it seems like wiki-lawyering to impose your will on the article title. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that this might not have occurred to you prior to the move. I just think the right, and nice thing to do here would have been to discuss the issue first, the change seems logical so with a bit of discussion that point could have easily been made, and then all would have been happy, or, at least, happier. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. After the article sat dormant for months, I thought it was fair game to move. I will allow that I may have gone about this in a more... deliberate way. But I stand by the move as being both within policy and the correct and logical name for the article. I have no problem whatsoever with the previous name and use being mentioned in the article, as should be evident. Tomdobb (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I wasn't indicting you or anything, and I pretty much agree that if a name has changed, especially to something as notable as a library, that the article should reflect that in its title, but there are exceptions. I wonder if anyone else is willing to chime in here. --IvoShandor (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This situation is what the wp:RM Requested Move system is for, to bring in uninvolved other editors into decisions about potentially controversial moves. RM is not a required process, but it is helpful and has been used before for this article. Just because "a few months go by" doesn't justify moving contrary to the previous RM process decision. In fact, Tomdobb was given some implicit direction in the previous RM process, to add some info about the library, and yet there is effectively very little info about the library. I don't really want to see a bunch of material manufactured about this children's library, though. My expectation is that the library is, on its own, not notable. I think the right thing now is for an admin to move it back to the church name (the previous consensus). Tomdobb could then use the RM process to suggest a move/rename. (Aside: why bother? Unless u are an advocate for children's libraries' coverage in wikipedia? I just don't understand where one of the parties is coming from here. I am aware of Clariosophic's consistent and extensive contributions on historic churches in wikipedia though.) doncram (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved this back to the previous RM consensus name. Actually, Tomdobb, you could/would get some support for your proposed rename if you wish to revisit this. You note correctly that there are other NRHP sites listed under common names that are different than NRHP program names for the site. However, only the NRHP official name should appear in the NRHP infobox. I suggest you provide documentation for what is now the common name for the site, before opening a Requested Move. (Although i still don't get what would be the motivation. I note there are only a dozen or so PA libraries in the category; this is hardly one of the top 12 libraries in the state.) doncram (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I failed to add info about the library, but it should be noted that Clariosophic didn't edit the article at all for 10 months after it was created and didn't even notice (or acknowledge) that it was moved until 3 months after the fact. None of that is really relevant to the fact, though, that this building is called the Lackawanna County Children's Library. That's its name. My motivation here is being accurate and correct and following policy. Naming the article after the common name is the policy. It's confusing and misleading to refer to the building in any way other than its current name. Tomdobb (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be moved to the library name. Also, there was no consensus before, so reverting it to the previous consensus isn't possible. I would say Wiki policy is pretty clear here, we go with that. We'll see who else shows up. --IvoShandor (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Given that multiple people over the years (both within this talk page and with edits like this one) have pointed out that the page should really be titled Lackawanna County Children's Library, rather than the former use of the building, I propose the page move be completed.

I see that the original page creator (who seems to have created a number of pages related to these churches, but no longer seems to be active) was in strong opposition for a move, however I disagree with their reasoning. They state correctly that the page is about the building, however, the building's name is "Lackawanna County Children's Library" and not "First Church of Christ, Scientist". They propose another article be made for the Library, however if such a page was created it would almost certainly be immediately merged as there is no reason for two pages on the same building. The only other opposition was that there isn't enough info on the Library yet on the page, but that could easily be fixed.

WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" which in this case is the name of the Library. Relinus (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

After 8 months I've gone ahead with the move. Relinus (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)