Talk:Walton Grange No. 1454

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Walton Grange 1454-Former Armory → Walton Grange No. 1454-Former Armory Walton Grange No. 1454—Former Armory – Move to name properly showing "No." as an alternative to "#" which cannot be used in Wikipedia article names, as done for other NRHP places having "#" in their actual NRHP listing name. There was a later-created article at the target, now a redirect to this article, which was started first. Move over redirect. doncram 18:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – what is a 1454-Former? That hyphen obviously is wrong, and needs to be fixed. This page suggests that "Walton Armory" might be a good name. Also suggests that the punctuation is some kind of a dash. Maybe this book helps? Also, "former armory" should be lowercase, unless it's been named that, which seems unlikely. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You're not seriously opposed to the article being moved, really, are you? The official NRHP name for the place given in the NRIS database (and echoed exactly in the first webpage that you point to, at landmarkhunter.com) is "Walton Grange #1454--Former Armory" where the hyphen is indeed meant as some kind of dash. The double-dash was replaced by a single dash by NRHP editors, as is usually done, in lieu of using an en-dash or em-dash, which could be used instead if anyone cares about that. Me and other NRHP editors have not paid attention to possible use of dashes, though would not oppose use of dashes. The move request is not about the dash vs. hyphen distinction. Using a dash would be fine. Moving the page to "Walton Grange No. 1454-Former Armory" with the hyphen replaced by whatever kind of dash you want, would be fine, as long as there is a redirect from the hyphenated version. I can't read your second link, i get some message that i am over some free access limit. --doncram 07:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm seriously opposed to is moving one bad title to another. Whatever else you do, replace the hyphen with an em dash or a spaced en dash. See MOS:DASH. Or drop it and use a shorter name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine, thanks for pointing to that MOS:DASH. Proposal changed to use em-dash (—). Thanks! --doncram 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Move to Walton Grange Armory instead. "Walton Grange No. 1454-Former Armory" is bizarre and unreadable. What's the 1454? If it's some kind of catalogue number then it doesn't belong in the title. We don't put Oryx and Crake at Oryx and Crake 0-7710-0868-6. We don't put Goosnargh at Goosnargh 01772. We don't put Chinook salmon at Chinook salmon TSN 161980. Readers will neither search for such titles, nor will they understand them should they be lucky enough to stumble across the article. Won't somebody think of the readers? bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  I would not object to use of a less jargon-like common name, if one can be found. The problem with your Vote! is that you provide no reference supporting "Walton Grange Armory" as being a name ever used. The NRHP nom doc linked in the article repeatedly uses "Walton Grange No. 1454" and "Walton Grange No. 1454 (Meeting hall)". I would be okay with using "Walton Grange No. 1454" as article title but not newly-coined, never-used "Walton Grange Armory". --doncram 18:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  So... We're both looking at a source which repeatedly uses the name Walton Grange - a name not taken by any other article, so we need no disambiguation - but you still want to call it "Walton Grange No. 1454" even though (a) that's not the actual name of the subject, and (b) it is unreadable, and a ludicrously unlikely search term. There is a simpler solution right under our nose. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What source are you looking at? The NRHP nom document link has, if i counted correctly just now, about 11 instances of "Walton Grange No. 1454" with or without additional "(Meeting Hall)", one instance of "Walton Grange", one instance of "Walton Armory". There also is handwritten "Walton Grange" written on two maps. The formal name and the common name seems to be "Walton Grange No. 1454". --doncram 23:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

moving

The requested move above was closed with "no consensus", while in fact there was unanimous agreement among all commenting that it could/should be moved. An administrator's help was needed to make the requested move. Since I am not barred from moving it to the "Walton Grange No. 1454" name, I will just move it there now. --doncram 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)