Talk:Strathcona Public Building

Philately Low‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Alberta Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Proposed merge with larger article on EXACT same building

@Fralambert: I absolutely agree that this stubby article for "Strathcona Public Building" is also covered, with greater detail and multiple references, in the Old Strathcona Post Office article.

@Kevlar67: & @Split25: I'm pinging you both, as the two of you were the creators of the original "Strathcona Public Building" (Kevlar 67, in 2009) and the original Old Strathcona Post Office article (Split25, in 2015). You both put lots of effort, there has been little "new" input from other editors (mostly housekeeping on "references" and "categories"), and no other editors have responded to Fralambert's "merge" suggestion. Your opinions will help.

I'll start: "Strathcona Public Building" is the official name on some documents, though variations of "Old Strathcona Post Office", "Strathcona Post Office", "Old Southside Post Office" and other "... Post Office" variations seem to be very common in Edmonton news stories. I also note that the original "Strathcona Public Building" article does open with a statement regarding the alternative names. I'd suggest that the official name be the article, but that the expanded material in the Old Strathcona Post Office article be merged into the original article, then redirect the Old Strathcona Post Office article to the "Strathcona Public Building" article. This will capture any readers with Edmonton and area connections (live here or toured here) that might enter "Old Strathcona Post Office" as their search parameter. Comments? Jmg38 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmg38: I'm not familliar with the merging policies of enwiki, but when I merge in frwiki, I generally keep the other tittle as a redirect. --Fralambert (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and merge, either to this title or to the other. I am not fussed. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and

Done Klbrain (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klbrain this shoudl be at Old Strathcona Post Office per WP:Commonname Meters (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Edmonton and I doubt very much that anyone here has ever heard of the Strathcona Public Building, whereas the Old Strathcona Post Office is a very well-known building. Meters (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like good arguments to me, its just that the specific proposal to use the other names was uncontested since 12th August 2016. Perhaps wait for a few days to see if there opposing opinions and then, in presence of a consensus for the other name, launch a technical move request? I don't mind other solutions if others feel that there should be greater urgency.Klbrain (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'll list a few current refs to suppor the common name when I do. Meters (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]