Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows Hall No. 148

Requested move

{{movereq|Tolt Odd Fellows/Eagles Hall}}

The following is a closed 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 move to Independent Order of Odd Fellows Hall No. 148.

Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) Hall No. 148 → Tolt Odd Fellows/Eagles Hall — The current article name, created from the NHRP listing, is pretty horrendous, duplicating the name of the order that built the hall. https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/documents/HPIF/0/25/25898.pdf, the Washington State historic listing, provides "Tolt Odd Fellows/Eagles Hall" as the "historic name" of the building. While I don't like having slashes in article names, I think it's vastly better than the parenthesized original. Relisting for more discussion. Fences&Windows 11:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current article name "Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) Hall No. 148" was chosen by historic preservation professionals for the NRHP listing name, following guidelines for NRHP name choice which are well-detailed. The Washington state division of historic preservation listing name, was chosen originally by Karen Bean of the King County Office of Historic Preservation in 1985, is the one which SarekOfVulcan prefers. That name was one possibility that was considered in 1999 for the NRHP name, but was rejected. The NRHP name does not have to be used in Wikipedia article titles, and in general a different common name, if established as being common, is often chosen. But in general, an early historic preservation document's name choice should be over-ruled by the later, higher historic registry entry.

Thanks, SarekOfVulcan, for finding the the Washington state / King County document, which I'll add to the article now. --doncram (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. One obvious source which would pertain is the 1999 NRHP nomination document for the site, which exists and is available for free upon request (see instructions at wp:NRHPhelp. I wouldn't over-rule the naming choice reflected in that document, without at least consulting it. --doncram (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing, though -- it was chosen by preservation professionals for the NHRP listing. We're choosing a name for an encyclopedia article, which has its own guidelines. --23:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) should be followed, not necessarily the guidelines chosen by preservation professionals in 1985 or 1999. The wikipedia guideline states "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used." There is no known widely accepted English name for this place. The 1999 NRHP name is the modern official name, more modern and more official than the 1985 lower level listing. And, to some extent, it is also the widely accepted historical English name (the NRHP name is echoed in other webpages naming the site, such as in a county-wide website of visitor attractions at Things to do in Seattle, and such as in nationwide private websites about NRHP-listed places such as this one which shows the NRHP names). I notice that for a different IOOF article, SarekOfVulcan used a NRHP name found in an NRHP nomination document, to justify a different recent move. The NRHP document here would also be a good source. The name it promotes is the leading alternative name for this site unless a different name is documented as being widely accepted. --doncram (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• This site calls it "Oddfellows/ Eagles Hall", "Oddfellows (later Eagles) Hall", and "Carnation Eagles Hall". The sign on the building looks like it says "Eagle's Hall". At the least the redundant "(IOOF)" should be removed per WP:ABBR. Station1 (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that website is the one i added to the article, after finding it linked from the photos that i added. The website seems to be a not-very-reliable summary of the King County document that SarekOfVulcan found. It uses, literally, "Oddfellows/ Eagles Hall (1895), Carnation" as the name. The photos do show a small Eagle's Hall placard tacked to the building, but also show a larger "River Run Anglers" sign on the building.

Also I don't see that wp:ABBR covers the case of when an acronym is included in the official title of a place. Here we have an official name that happens to include an acronym. I don't think it is very elegant, myself, but in the absence of knowing a better common name, i would rather hang my hat on the awkward official name than coin a new one. --doncram (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "(IOOF)" is actually part of the name. That's why it's in parentheses. It's similar to when we add something in parentheses to an article title: it clarifies but isn't actually part of the name. The name could be written as Independent Order of Odd Fellows Hall No. 148 or IOOF Hall No. 148, but WP style prefers the former. Station1 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed " (IOOF)" from the name. I can't see sufficient evidence of its 'common name' to overrule the name given by professionals. There are several alternatives presented above, including three with different apostrophes in "Eagles". I expect another move discussion will be required once more research is done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:54, 6 December 2010 (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.