Jump to content

Talk:Polly Rosenbaum Building

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name change?

[edit]

I realize that the NRHP lists the building as El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium, but does anyone else? We actually have a three way "listed name" vs "common name" vs "official name" conflict... We know what the NRHP calls it... and given the huge lettering on the outside of the building (seen here), the common name is probably the "Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum" while the "offical name" used by the Dept. itself is the "Polly Rosenbaum building"... I raise the issue because, apparently, there is another building in Phoenix that goes by the name "El Zariba Shrine Auditorium" (ie the current El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium ... the building that the Shriners built and moved into when they sold their former building to the ADMM, see here). Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Moving the page to Polly Rosenbaum Building; I've read through the complete arguments and see much heavier weight of the move supporters. This is not to say that the opposer group do not have valid arguments; they do; the NRHP one perhaps being the strongest. However, perspectives of seeing guidelines in a unique format by one of the opposing editors, as well as a re-check of Google hits links mentioned in this discussion (in depth, discounting mirror sites as well), validates the move arguments given below. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium → Polly Rosenbaum Building — Since the current Shrine building uses the same name, we should go with the current official name of the historic building to disambiguate it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Fixed above, since nobody else has commented yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be moved... but I think WP:Common name would indicate a different option... the name that is plastered on the front of the building in great big letters is "Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum". I would be willing to bet that the majority of modern, up to date sources refer to the building by that name... rather than the "official" Polly Rosenbaum Building (which is probably only used within the Museum itself). Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The Museum could be anywhere -- it just happens to be in the Rosenbaum Building at the moment. An article on the Museum should deal with the history of the collections, and should have little to do with whatever building it's currently housed within. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... good point about the potential for an article on the museum as opposed to the building... sort of like Henry Clay Frick House vs Frick Collection. I withdraw my suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of good examples of "merged" articles about museums and the buildings that house them, where both would be valid separate topics. It is often economical to have just one article, showing clearly in the lede that the article is about both topics. --doncram (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move for now. There's currently no need to move for disambiguation purposes, as there is no article on any other "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium". (Is the other one mentioned somewhere, wikipedia-notable? If so, start an article and then disambiguation will indeed be needed.) I haven't read everything available yet, mentioned in other discussion, but it's not clear to me yet that "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" is a bad name. I think the building during its period of importance was known as that. A major relevant source that would be relevant is the free, available NRHP nomination document for the structure. I would tend to want to defer to anyone who actually had done the basic research to have a fully informed opinion, including their obtaining and considering that document. Otherwise I would prefer to be conservative and accept the NRHP name for the place. The place is in fact known to be wikipedia-notable because it is NRHP-listed (as a proxy for historical importance assessed by objective processes, and reliable sources available), so why not find out why the NRHP name is what it is, first. --doncram (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I would tend to want to defer to anyone who actually had done the basic research to have a fully informed opinion, including their obtaining and considering that document." -- enough with the backhanded personal attacks, Doncram, I've seen you use this same wording at least three times before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a standard type offer that i have made in many other contexts, not involving you, SarekOfVulcan. SarekOfVulcan, thank you for opening this as a Requested Move, so that various opinions can be gathered. --doncram (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: why the NRHP name is what it is... I think that is obvious even without seeing any documents... "El Zariba Shrine Auditorium" was the only name associated with the building at the time that it was listed. Since then, the situation has changed. No one can guess what name they would list it under if they were listing it new today. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, this is just one more instance of your pattern of taking strong positions without your being informed. It is amazing that you feel no need for actual information, and that you state that so clearly.
Noticing that there is now a separate article about the museum, I update my view to simply Oppose, rather than Oppose for now. --doncram (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The plot thickens. Before I tell you about the new wrinkle I discovered, let me say that I prefer the name "Polly Rosenbaum Building" because the museum collection and the building appear to me to be fairly independent as topics, and it seems that the building also houses some state offices. The new wrinkle I discovered is that there are two Polly Rosenbaum Buildings in Phoenix! The other one is the Polly Rosenbaum State Archives and History Building, completed in 2008 and dedicated in 2009. Fortunately, the new building has a somewhat different name, so it shouldn't be difficult to disambiguate them. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeezum... what's next... the discovery of second Phoenix, Arizona? Blueboar (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smile... If there's a second Phoenix, I think it is supposed to rise from the ashes of the first. However, the first one hasn't burned yet.
Be that as it may, I did start an article about Polly Rosenbaum. There's a lot to tell about -- I feel like I've barely started writing up the material I've found... --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another strange wrinkle: It seems (from this article) that the Mining and Mineral Museum is being converted into a history museum, to be dubbed the Arizona Centennial Museum. Although the name over the door is currently "Mining and Mineral Museum" (per Google Street View), who knows what it will be next year or the year after that. The doors do have the look of a Shriners' building. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly. Is the name of an NRHP listing going to be changed every time the building itself changes owners and/or names? The article is about the historic building, not the current use. You are opening a can of worms here. If Donald Trump were to buy the Empire State Building and rename it for himself, would we rush to change the name of the article? I think not. In any event, the official state name for this building doesn't even appear to be the common name for the building. While this building is listed for its architectural style, that architectural style was greatly influenced by the identity of the entity that built it. The name should remain El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium. clariosophic (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the name under discussion isn't the name of the NRHP listing, it's the name of the article about the building on the listing. And yes, article names do change when the building names change -- see Sears Tower, for example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek is corret... we are not really discussing what the name of the building is... we are discussing what the best title of this article should be. There is a clear precedent that when a building obtains a new name, Wikipedia changes the title of the article to match. We should absolutely mention (prominently, in bold, in the first sentence) that the building was formerly called the El Saribah Shrine Auditorim, and we should also mention that the NRHP lists it under that name... but we should change the title. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Sears Tower is not on the NRHP. It has been the Wills Tower for under 2 years. Who knows what it will be next year? I still think the article should not be changed, especially when there is no clear cut choice. The name on the building now is the Museum's name, not Polly Rosenbaum's. clariosophic (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What all this means we have multiple names to choose from... there is the name used by the NRHP (outdated), the name used by the ADM&M ("official" but probably not that common), the name on the outside of the building (unofficial but likely to be how most people refer to it) ... and there probably will be a new name once it becomes the Centennial Museum. What we need to do is figure out which is the best name to use our article title... and Behold... there is a policy page that tells us how to do this... see WP:Article titles. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have some intentions of writing a separate article about the Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum, which is a distinct entity that has a relatively weak connection to this building. The museum was started in 1884 as a state fair exhibit, moved into a permanent building in 1919, and began operating year-round in 1953. It's only been in this building since 1991. If it gets displaced from this building, its future is uncertain. This article indicates that former governor Rose Mofford said that if the museum were to close, she would have her lawyer lawyer "divvy [all of her donations to it] to the rural museums of Arizona." --Orlady (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Orlady: You are to be commended for creating new articles. In my opinion, this is one of the benefits of having list articles and results in a more comprehensive Wikipedia. clariosophic (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Blueboar's last: The policy may be nice, but I fail to see where it addresses building in general and historic buildings in general. I think we need to look more to the informal policies that the NHRP project has followed which is to favor the historic name in most cases. clariosophic (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP policy... it addresses all articles... including the ones on buildings. Looking at actual practice... there seems to be some precedence for not using the NRHP name when it comes to buildings that were once used by the Masons and now have new uses and new names... consider Grand Opera House (Wilmington, Delaware) (not "Masonic Hall and Grand Theater" as listed by the NRHP)... Ford Center for the Performing Arts Oriental Theatre (not "New Masonic Building and Oriental Theater") ... New York City Center (not "Mecca Temple"). That last one seems very apt, since it involves a former Shriner's building, like the one we are discussing. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back to margin. I remain strongly opposed to the change. Reply to above. None of those articles were created as NRHP articles. The NRHP data was tacked on later. To quote from Wikipedia:Article titles: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." IMHO that means that there is some flexibility in it and it's not written in stone. In the table on the right is a list of Specific-topic naming conventions, none of which pertain to buildings, as far as I can see. In the case at hand. The Mining Museum now has its owns article and Polly Rosenbaum has her own article, which is fine. This article as I stated above is about the building itself and El Zaribah Shrine is the reason the building was built in the first place. clariosophic (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The National Register of Historic Places doesn't own the properties that are listed on the National Register, and the NRHP WikiProject doesn't own the articles about them. Furthermore, the National Register of Historic Places doesn't own the names of listed properties, and there's nothing magic, consecrated, or carved in stone about the name that's recorded in the National Register. In the case of a public building such as this one, the name on the National Register listing usually is the WP:COMMON name of the property at the time that it was added to the Register. Names can and do change over time, and it defies reason to insist that a name recorded in the National Register in 1989 (or 1967 or 1974 or 2002 or or any other date in the past) is necessarily the One True Primary Name Forevermore. If the name of a uniquely famous building like the Sears Tower (which name was recorded in the Guinness Book of Records and myriad other respected lists) can change, why must the name of a comparatively obscure building be forever frozen as the name that it had when it became one of the 85,000 properties listed on the National Register? --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. In my experience, the historic name of a property is more likely to be chosen by the NRHP than a current name, if there is one. Usually such alternate names are listed on the front page of the nomination form. clariosophic (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your observation is correct, that is all the more reason not to insist that articles carry the same title that the NRHP listed. Regardless, in this case there is no evidence that the building had ever had any name other than "El Zaribah Shring Auditorium" as of 1989, when it was listed on the National Register. That was 21 years ago, though, and a different building has used that name in the years since. Furthermore, a different name (Polly Rosenbaum Building) was bestowed on this particular building 19 years ago. --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be fairly evenly split on this, and I don't see anyone changing their minds as to what their preferred choice is ... I think that we need outside opinions to break the tie and help us form a firmer consensus. Would anyone object to my opening this up to a broader audience by filing an RfC? Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does not warrant an RfC, IMO, and it is listed at WP:Requested moves. However, it would be helpful to alert other users who might have knowledge or interest. I'll go find WikiProject Arizona and ask for input there. --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, we would object. That's kind of what the WP:RM is for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, i object. Way too much splitting of issue discussions, way too much community attention called for on minor issues related to Masonic buildings, way too much distrust of experienced editors' informed judgements advising editors without experience in these areas, way too much canvassing, simply way too much everything. Let the wp:RM process work. --doncram (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I draw everyone's attention to my comment below (which was originally here)... which was made before Doncram side tracked us with his attacks on Sarek and me. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, editor SarekOfVulcan objected to my stating the above, and edited it in this edit, with edit summary about striking "inflammatory language". I restored my comment as written. SarekOfVulcan, I don't agree that what I wrote was wrong. In fact this instance now of Blueboar calling for an RFC is one more instance of Blueboar pressing for undue community attention. In this case, 3 editors (Orlady, you, me) are online and responded immediately to say no, please don't. In many other cases Blueboar has given a note like here but then proceeded within an hour or two or three to open RFCs, split articles, or otherwise proceed, without letting a Talk page or other process work. There has been an excessive disruption of wikipedia by these actions on the relatively nonimportant area of Masonic buildings, where there are no BLP issues or any conceivable harm done. Your editing my Talk page comment which I believe was perfectly civil enough, does not help. I also believe that your pattern focus on my edits and your finding fault with them, verges on wikihounding. Add this little incident to the pile, for you to raise in a future dispute resolution, and I will also. --doncram (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like having things hanging over my head. If you have enough material to file on me, feel free. Otherwise, don't bother telling me until you actually file.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that SarekOfVulcan was trying to communicate that it should be possible for you to disagree with someone's opinion without converting your disagreement into a personal attack. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem... I merely suggested it so that we could get some additional opinions to help us break the current deadlock and form a consensus. If there is a different way to get more editors involved in the discussion, I am content. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, about Talk page formatting, your current comment is properly showing as one indent from the comment it followed, although now separated by further indented side discussion that followed even more specifically that comment. This is fine. Your comment here is seen by others, exactly as it was presented, as following the previous comment that it did follow. Capeche? --doncram (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Perhaps we need to get away from debating about the "name" of the building ... and use a descriptive title instead. I am thinking of something like Former El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium or Old El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium (if the new Shrine building ever becomes notable enough for an article, that article could then be titled New El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium) ... just a thought. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. As Clario has well explained, the "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" is in fact a good descriptive name for this building, and we don't need to coin a new one. Other reasons against this name have dwindled. Specifically the creation of a separate article about the museum takes away the suggestion that the article should be a combo article about both, and then that it should probably take the museum name. Enough has been said already; nothing is being gained by further suggestions to change the name, just for sake of changing the name. --doncram (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a new suggestion, I would appreciate keeping it in its own sub-section. No problem if people don't like the suggestion, it was just a thought that I had. I'll withdraw it. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of arguments for and against the options

[edit]

It may help us reach a consensus if we restate the options in an organized way... and state the arguments for and against each (feel free to add to this) Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is needed. There are reasons against the proposed move stated above; they don't all need to be restated here. If what follows remains an incomplete and biased outline, it should have no effect on the Move proposal and discussion above. --doncram (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium:

  • For: This title is a historical name for the building and is how the building is listed by the NRHP
It is the best choice because choice two (Polly Rosenbaum Building) is not the common name and choice three (Arizona Mining and Minerals Museum) only covers part of the building. -- Blueboar
It is the name on the City of Phoenix Historic Register. Phoenix Historic Property Register clariosophic (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is the NRHP name, the name also appears at "NRHP.COM" ( http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com ) and Archiplanet.org and multiple other guides to historic places. --doncram (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It provides for simple editorial treatment of both buildings of the name "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium", as in this version: The El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium is the name of two buildings in Phoenix, Arizona.... etc. All versions of this article have been mentioning the other, newer building (which so far seems not wikipedia-notable / not needing a separate article). If a different name of article is used, would "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" be redirected to another article where they both would be covered? It seems more natural to cover them in one article at name "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium". --doncram (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against: As a descriptive title it is out dated... as the building is no longer used by El Zaribah Shrine. As a Proper Name title it is out-dated as the building has been given a new name by its owners.
Moreover, note that the National Register of Historic Places is not a living database in which names are routinely updated to reflect changes. (It's like a printed phone directory, as distinct from a phone listing database.) Therefore, the fact that the Register lists an old name is not an indication that any particular significance is attached to that old name. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I seem to remember hearing over and over again that Wikipedia is not a phone directory. clariosophic (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But insisting that the only acceptable name for the building is the one that was included in the National Register of Historic Places listing in 1989 (while ignoring everything that has been said and done since then), is much like relying on a print copy of a 1989 telephone directory as your preferred information source because you happen to have a copy of that year's directory. There is no question that the WP:COMMON name for this building 21 years ago was "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium". However, for the last 20.9 years that name has belonged to a different building, and this building got a new name 19 years ago. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been handled in articles on county courthouses by adding Old to the article name as in Old X County Courthouse. Perhaps that is a solution here. clariosophic (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested something like this in the sub-section immediately above this one... I would have no problem with that. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of most county courthouses so named, "Old X County Courthouse" truly is the WP:COMMON name for the building. That's not the case for El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium -- I've seen no evidence that it's called "Old El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium". (Aside: In the past I've encountered opposition from NRHP mavens to the idea of renaming articles like Roane County Courthouse (Tennessee), because there is a strongly held view within that group that the name listed in the National Register supersedes current usage. The case of that particular courthouse is similar to this one, as it was the active courthouse in 1971 when it was listed on the National Register, but it became the "Old Roane County Courthouse" in 1974 when a new courthouse was built.) --Orlady (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, just leave it as it is. clariosophic (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had no intention of suggesting that there is any merit to the certain NRHP Wikiproject members' insistence on using the name listed in the National Register. I see no merit on insisting that Wikipedia must continue to use, as a building's primary name, a name that everybody else stopped using several decades ago. --Orlady (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that tone is necessary. WikiProject NRHP members Clario and I and others do not insist like that; in fact i and others have gone out of our way to help sort out good common or other official names to use in many articles that are also about a NRHP-listed place. Here the best name for the building, separate from the museum which is now in a separate article (put there by Orlady i think), does seem to me to be "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" because it is accurate and descriptive and reflective of why the place is notable. I believe that without the architecture and NRHP-listing of the Shrine auditorium building, that the Polly Rosenbaum Building would not be wikipedia-notable. The "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" name appears in multiple places on the internet and is in fact currently a name for this building. --doncram (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply to that multifaceted comment in four parts: (1) My "I had no intention" comment about the NRHP wikiproject practice was intended to dispel any impression that I endorsed that practice. It appeared to me that Clarisophic might have interpreted my comment as indicating that I was making such an endorsement. I regret that Doncram's sensibilities were offended by my attempt to be unambiguous. (2) I do not apologize for creating the separate article about the museum because the museum is a topic largely unrelated to this building (and it turns out the article title was on some "Missing encyclopedic articles" lists). That separate article is now nearly twice the size of this article (counting prose length; it doesn't have an infobox or navbox, like this article does), including only one sentence about this building, and there's plenty more content available to be added to that article. There's more to a museum than an historic building. (3) The building is notable because of its age and architecture, and because a lady named Polly Rosenbaum (who was, among other things, an historic preservationist) managed to save it from destruction. Its listing on the National Register was a result of those attributes and is one indicator of the building's notability; it is not the cause of the building's notability. (4) Those "multiple places on the internet" on the internet where the name "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" is used for this building are (with a very few exceptions) Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors and similar websites derivative of Wikipedia, and websites derivative of the National Register database. Wikipedia mirrors don't count in evaluating usage, and the National Register should not count more than once. Thus, all those "places" are exactly one place: the National Register. The very few exceptions (i.e., other places where I have seen the name used for this building) are pages (for example, articles about the museum) that give "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" as the former name/use of this building. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Rosenbaum Building:

  • For: This title represents the "official" Proper Name of the building chosen by its current owners (the Arizona Dept. of Mines and Minerals)
Note that in fact the current owner is not the Arizona Dept. of Mines and Minerals, but the state of Arizona. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against:
It is not the common name and in fact is also the name of another building with a slightly different name. clariosophic (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for saying it is not the common name of the building?
As for being the name of another building with a "slightly different" name, that other building is the "Polly Rosenbaum Archives and History Building" (I've also seen it called the "Polly Rosenbaum State Archives Building"), which is more than "slightly" different. If these were two different buildings named for George Washington, I don't believe you would have any difficulty distinguishing the two names -- these two names only seem to be very similar because their namesake is not very widely known. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were through with all this arguing. I will ask Orlady, though, what her basis is for saying it is the common name? Official name does not necessarily equal common name. clariosophic (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... one rough way to tell commonality is the Google Test... which gets more hits?... "Polly Rosenbaum Building" (with quotation marks) gets around 4400... "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" gets 2200. Granted, some of the Polly hits are referring to the other Polly Rosenbaum building (and a quick glance shows that a few talk about both)... but this is off set by the fact that some of the El Zaribah hits are referring to the new El Zaribah auditorium. Is the Google Test perfect?... no... but it does give an indication. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Google results can be erratic. When I ran the Google test just now (web results only), I got about 4200 hits on "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" in quotes (a lot more than Blueboar got). However, of the top 100 hits, almost all were about the new building that currently uses that name. The exceptions were mostly hits on Wikipedia (for example, this article), mirrors of Wikipedia, and other websites that reproduce content from the National Register database. (There were also some junk websites.) I skimmed those top 100 results, and the only non-NRHP-related page I found that refers to this building without also identifying it as the Polly Rosenbaum Building is this one. With "Polly Rosenbaum Building" in quotes, I get only 53 hits (many times fewer than Blueboar). Most are about one or the other of the two buildings, and a few are about both (for example, this article, which comments on the fact that there are few state buildings in Phoenix named for anybody, but two buildings are named for this one person). I don't want to draw any momentous conclusions from those results. --Orlady (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I did say the Google Test was not perfect... its only good for a quick indication :>). I double checked and I now get your 4180 hits on "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium", but now I get about 9,970 hits on "Polly Rosenbaum Building" (I wonder why we get such different results using the same search term?)... anyway... your analysis of the first 100 hits (on both searches) seems to match what I get on my searches too. Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is bizarre! I clicked on your search link (which should submit those same search parameters that you submitted) and got those same 53 hits on "Polly Rosenbaum Building." --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is bizarre. (and when I just tried it again myself... using the link I posted above... It gave me around 4,200 hits!).
I tried it again this morning (with your link), and got 54 hits. I changed my location on the Google Search page to Phoenix, AZ, and got 54 hits again. --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Google News Archive will give more steady results... I get 34 hits for El Zaribah (However they are all talking about the building on N. 40th St... ie the new Shrine Auditorium) and only one hit on Polly. (which tells me that neither name is all that common) Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Mining and Minerals Museum

  • For: Descriptive title that represents the building's current function.
  • Against: This title is already used for an article on the museum itself.
The article is about the building, not the building's current function. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The building also houses offices that are not directly related to the museum function. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Centennial Museum

  • For: This title is a descriptive title representing the building's future function
  • Against: represents something that has not happened yet.
Strongly against. Not only is this something that has not happened yet, it is something that might never happen. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I have not added any "reasons against" for the "Polly Rosenbaum Building". This is because no one has expressed any in our conversations so far. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons against that option have been stated. --doncram (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Talk page practices within El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium requested move

[edit]

As part of the Requested move discussion, there has been confusing editing of others comments and apparently confusion on what are usual practices for indenting. Could anyone else please clarify, for one editor, that usually a single indent makes sense for a comment following another. And, that if a new comment very specificly responding to an earlier comment is inserted, it is usual to use double indent. And follow-ons can be further indented. The editor has followed unusual indenting in many previous discussions, often partially outdenting, and may truly not be aware of usual indenting practices.

The editor reformatted this Talk page to reinsert his comment after the comment it originally followed, moving out inserted other side discussion. I restored it. He reverted it. In this edit, I will restore it once more. I ask the other editor not to change it. He asked me not to change it, too, but I seriously believe he is not aware of usual practices, as proven by his frequent unusual partial outdenting, and that the discussion is clearer using usual practices. I would welcome others giving guidance on what are usual practices, which I believe are clear to most editors, but I don't exactly know where there are specific instructions. --doncram (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, Doncram is objecting to this edit (where I moved a comment I had made previously back to where it was before Doncram inserted some later comments). My comment was made in direct reply to those that were originally above it, and I think that fact gets lost with the insertion of Doncram's comments. But it isn't important enough to make a federal case over.
I have to ask... Doncram, is this really so important to you that you are willing to go all the way to 3rr limit to keep it in "your" version? A cup of tea might be in order. Blueboar. (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, Blueboar, i wonder likewise why you, on multiple discussions / probably most discussions you are involved in, why you have generally ignored conventions of Talk page formatting, in order to indent differently. It seems disruptive, especially when you "edit war" to return pages to your unusual formatting, after others reformat to normal. Here are a couple of honest questions: 1) do you understand that double indenting when inserting a comment is standard practice? 2) do you understand that such practice of double indenting leaves the single indented comment appropriately placed, still as a follow-on to the comment it originally followed? It does leave that originally single indented comment now partially outdented, relative to the inserted, further indented comments. I honestly think you must not understand that. Because you have frequently used partial outdenting when it did not conform to usual practices, which has seemed to suggest to others that the stuff above was inserted later. I would welcome your paying more attention to this.
And, I have pointed out in several of these discussions, that your unusual formatting changes the subject from the content to the formatting. Is it really so important to you, in case after case, to distract others from the substance of discussion? It happens that i am pointing this out to you, doing you the favor. Others are frequently irked in a minor way, but like me most of the time, they have not mentioned it. Part of the irksomeness is that your editing disregards working practices in ways that put your own comments further forward, too, as if your views are more important, and as if everyone should recognize your views differently.
Certainly this is off-topic for the move, but I would welcome others' comments on the Talk page practices, as it repeats again and again and again. --doncram (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has nothing to do with improving this article, it would probably be better to move this discussion off to our talk pages. But, I will answer your question ... It isn't that I intentionally ignore talk page conventions... I simply don't get my knickers in a twist about indenting and outdenting and all that stuff to the same extent that you seem to. They're conventions after all, not some sort of holy writ. To be honest, I think you are over reacting in making a big deal out of this... I have been editing the way I edit for five years now, and you are the first person who has ever complained. Given the poor faith you have exhibited towards me, I have to take your complaints with a grain of salt. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
Offhand i believe that you have not gotten much feedback on your practices besides what i have provided to you in several places recently. That doesn't mean they weren't a bit annoying to other editors and disruptive in a small way in every instance. I expect that Freemasonry-focused editors have gotten used to your editing style and that others at general noticeboards didn't want to get into it. No one, me included, wants to dictate exactly how Talk page comments should be formatted. It is just that in conjunction with other editing practices under discussion, this seems to be a pattern in your editing that stands out and interacts with other matters, and one you could simply remove as a issue. --doncram (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my experience, it often is difficult to maintain sensible threading of comments on Wikipedia talk pages. The wikiformat does not lend itself to these kinds of communications. It appears to me that both Blueboar and Doncram generally work to arrange their comments in sensible fashion. There are some users whose disregard of talk page convention can drive a person mad (for example, on this page and its archives, although I hasten to point out that the current appearance of that talk page reflects a fair amount of reformatting that I did to preserve my sanity), but neither Doncram nor Blueboar falls anywhere near that category.
    However, Doncram was seriously out of line in insisting (and edit-warring to enforce his insistence) that the long off-topic interruption he inserted in the middle of a conversation must be allowed to remain where he decided to put it, in spite of the fact that it made a statement by Blueboar look nonsensical. Moreover, this is hardly the first time I've seen Doncram refactor other users' talk-page comments to suit his own purposes. It's not civil to do that... --Orlady (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i reformatted to restore original formatting. Blueboar's and Orlady's edits reformatted my comment and others to present a different, non-original formatting. Also, i disagree that any edit of mine made Blueboar's original comment or any other look nonsensical. I do think that a reformatting edit by Orlady (that i reverted) did orphan a comment of mine and make it look nonsensical. --doncram (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what you mean by "original formatting". If you look at this diff you will see how the original chain of comments looked. Your inserted comments disrupted that original formatting. My move was an attempt to restore that chain of comments back to its "original" formatting. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, here is where it would help if others would point this out to you, that a double-indented insertion like that is normal and is not viewed as "disrupting" the formatting of the comment it was inserted before. I and others would see the main thread of discussion as continuing from the single-indented comment at bottom. That practice of double-indented insertion is helpful for allowing a small, specific discussion to happen and to be absorbed, which would expect to get little followup and to be passed by main discussion continuing at bottom. It is a respectful practice. Another feature of your Talk page editing practices that i have noticed, in fact, is that you often have opened new separate discussion sections that seemed unnecessary (and in fact disruptive). Please consider using the device of a double-indented insertion, to register a quick technical correction or other small side discussion, at times. --doncram (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two buildings or one

[edit]

Doncram wishes to include the following (referring to the new El Zaribah auditorium): .... In late 1989, the Shriners completed their new auditorium building at 552 N. 40th Street, which now also bears the name "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" (bolding mine)... I disagree with the word "also". I don't think we have a situation where two buildings have the same name... we have a situation where a name was transferred from one building to another. With the construction of the new building, the old building ceased to be named the "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium". For a brief time it had no name (although it could be described as being "the former El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium", that was no longer its name.) And when the ADMM took the building over its name became the "Polly Rosenbaum Building". At no point were there two buildings with the name "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium". Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I am going to shift focus... is this really an article about two buildings? I don't think so. I think we should return the focus back to the historic building alone. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is titled "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" and will be found by readers looking for either building of this name. Both buildings are mentioned. Only the first building of this name has been found/suggested to be Wikipedia-notable, but it has been pointed out that another building of the same name exists. It seems reasonable to mention them both, with more emphasis on the notable, historic one. I hope there's not going to be a split proposal and endless discussion now. I did previously suggest that if anyone had enough to open an article about the 2nd building they should do so. Barring a substantial separate article, it seems useful and best to cover them both in this article titled "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium". Or, do you want to delete mention of the other building? --doncram (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, why don't you just let consensus work here, and see what happens? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: The article is titled "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium"... well, that's the question the move request is trying to answer, isn't it? Should the article continue to have that title. Three out of the five editors commenting so far have expressed the opinion that they don't think it should continue to have that title. Granted, that isn't enough to clearly say there is a consensus one way or the other... but your suggestion that we make this about two buildings instead of one seems to be a fairly blatant attempt to do an end run around the move request. At minimum it should be discussed before we do it. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Replying to SarekOfVulcan: Yep, trying to do that. No need for you to call for, elsewhere, administrators' to come in and quickly close this to cut off discussion, either (SarekOfVulcan's edit at wp:ANI about this, with my reply). That seems incompatible with your suggestion. --doncram (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the name of this article by the way. If it were to be moved, what do you or others think should be done with the "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" name. Would you want it to redirect to some other article? If so, would the other article cover both of the buildings of this name? This is part of why I see it is best for there to be an article about the original and newer buildings of this name, at "El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium". --doncram (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Blueboar has now reverted the article to a previous version, losing various good wording changes incorporated in this version. That loses wording improvements introduced by me and SarekOfVulcan and perhaps others. --doncram (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup... when someone makes a significant change to an article without discussion, you often end up having other small edits reverted out. Happens all the time. We can return the small edits after we discuss the major ones. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done with the name?... nothing. The name isn't notable. What is notable is the building that used to go by that name (and now has a different name).
That said... I suspect that you may be making a common mistake in terminology... conflating the term name with article title. If so, it would be absolutely appropriate to change the current article title into a redirect pointing to the new article title. This would allow those who search for the article about the building using the old name to find it. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(note... now that the page has been moved... I checked and the old title (El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium does indeed redirect to the new title (Polly Rosenbaum Building). Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Polly Rosenbaum Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polly_Rosenbaum_Building&oldid=1208138738"