Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut)

Requested move 1

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain). Consensus is clear that the title should be Temple B'Nai Israel with some form of disambiguation. The consensus on how to disambiguate is much less clear but I think there is a very slight consensus for this title. That said there was not much discussion about the disambiguation issue so a speedy new RM on just the disambiguation issue would not be unreasonable if any editor were so inclined although a wider discussion may be more appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Masonic Temple (New Britain, Connecticut) → Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) – Current title is out of date and misleading. While the building was originally constructed (in 1929) as a Masonic meeting hall, the building has not served that function since 1940 (when the Masons sold it). It's been a synagogue for over seventy years, ... far longer than it was ever a Masonic meeting hall. The suggested title seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for the building (see: Google search)... In fact the only source that still refers to it by the original name is the National Register of Historic Places... and the NRHP nomination documents [see here use the modern name more often. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but move to just Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain); there's not another article of that title in another town called New Britain, so the more concise we can make the parenthetical the better. The Hartford press seems to call it by its current name,[1] a good indication that this is more common.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note... we do need disambiguation as we have an article on Temple B'Nai Israel (Jackson, Tennessee)... as for what to put in the parenthetical... WP:USPLACE calls for using the "City, State" format. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Example textUSPLACE says nothing about what to put in the parenthetical disambiguation, which only needs to be long enough to distinguish the article from others of that name. There's no other "Temple B'Nai Israel" in any other place called New Britain, so we don't need the extra verbiage of "Connecticut". Not a major point, the important thing is that the article is moved to something involving "Temple b'Nai Israel".--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just New Britain is fine for the parenthetical. The sources call it that. Apteva (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree the important thing is the change from "Masonic Temple" to "Temple B'Nai Israel"... the disambiguation is a relatively minor issue, and we should not let it distract us from the more important one. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We know the place is Wikipedia-notable because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which requires significant documentation and other review hurdles to be passed. The National Register guidelines for their own naming are to use the historic names. We don't have to follow their official naming policy, but we can. It is not necessary to rename. It doesn't matter a whole lot, though. But also Temple b'Nai Israel is not specific enough as a possible article name, but rather is suitable to be a disambiguation page or a "redirect with possibilities". If that name were temporarily used it would be natural for any editor to immediately move it to something like Temple b'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut). So reasoning that parenthetical disambiguating can be avoided by using a Temple name is probably incorrect. --doncram 17:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think "Masonic Temple" is more specific than "Temple B'Nai Israel"? It's also a bit disingenuous to say that "Masonic Temple" is somehow the "official NRHP approved name" for the property... did you even look at the NRHP documentation on the building? It repeatedly calls it "Temple B'Nai Israel" ... as does the NRHP's Historic Synagogues of Connecticut MPS. As for redirects... I would have no problem having the current "Masonic Temple" title as a redirect pointing to the proposed title. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar, please be civil and please avoid the appearance of interest in making and/or supporting personal attacks.

Yes, i did read the NRHP nomination document, including when I developed this article and found and developed that reference, and again now. There is nothing "disingenuous". I happen to be more familiar than many with the NRHP guidelines for NRHP naming. Hmm, i was thinking, as explained in this guideline, page 5 or PDF page 11 but i see that is about related-but-different naming of multiple property submissions. Hmm, probably addressed this general guideline, though I don't see where within that immediately.

Anyhow the significance of this property for NRHP listing has mostly to do with its architecture, which was created by/for the original Masonic group, and which was largely unchanged by the later Jewish synagogue usage. It is most appropriate for the NRHP listing to use the original name. It is a pattern that I have seen before, for the NRHP nomination document to have been written mostly using one name (the synagogue name) in the drafted text, and then for the higher level decision of NRHP listing name to reflect a greater totality of information available, and to go with something different that better reflects the purpose of NRHP listing. The top level name is actually often crossed out and rewritten by hand to be a different, better name, in many original NRHP nomination documents.

Again, i don't want to overstate anything, and reiterate that it doesn't matter much. Evidence of a different name being in use is indeed support for choosing different wikipedia article title. But in other cases we don't have to accept an organization choosing to change its official name for a building, when that does not change the common name in practice, and when that goes against the sweep of historic usage. And we can choose to use, here, the name that continues to evoke the historic significance, why this place is wikipedia-notable (which I think is not for it being a synagogue). --doncram 18:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the NRHP considers the importance of the building to the Jewish community just as significant (or perhaps more so) than its architecture... but I'll let the docs speak for themselves rather than argue. Also, the NRHP is not the be-all-and-end-all of this building's notability. We have to consider sources other than the NRHP. And in the real world beyond the NRHP, the building is very notable for being a synagog... and notable under the name "Temple B'Nai Israel". Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

New Britain, Connecticut, has a real Masonic Temple at 10 Mason Drive. Describing another building as such is erroneous and confusing. [2] Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support It's a synagogue - live with it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) as proposed. The common name argument mentioned (but admittedly not highlighted) in the proposal seems to be sufficient argument on its own, and is unanswered above. The proposed disambiguation seems both consistent with other articles and sensible, as while there may not be another Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain), there are several other places called New Britain and one of the others is the primary meaning, which will make the shorter disambiguation less recognizable to readers (WP:AT of course). Perhaps the disambiguation guidelines need clarification on this point. Andrewa (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguator

Following the RM closing comments above and discussions at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Precision of disambiguators and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposed addition to guideline to eliminate ambiguity, I hereby foreshadow a future RM to Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut). Note that this move affects only the disambiguator.

I intend to wait until some conclusion is reached at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but expect it to favour this rename. So far in fact, there has been universal support for it there so far as I can see.

Comments either here or there welcome in the meantime. Andrewa (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the reaction there, and the flaky close rationale for not going with the title that people supported, I went ahead and boldly moved it. We can see if anyone objects in light of all this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will object. And I observed to myself before that no sysop powers would be needed to do a bold move, as the targets were vacant. Andrewa (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

For clarity sake, and for the record here as people in the future may not find the conversations elsewhere, I'm going to copy the further explanation I gave to User:Vegaswikian here:

I disagree, based on the RM discussion and current policies. As discussed in the RM WP:AT says both that an article title should be concise and that it should be recognizable to readers. Based on the limited discussion at the RM it would appear that these two are in conflict in this case and I thought that the consensus amongst the editors was just towards concise being the more important one here. As has been pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation there is currently no policy directly relevant to this situation those arguments were all I had to go on. However, as I said when closing, I also accept that the consensus was very weak so specifically said that I think more discussion of that aspect of the title would be reasonable. On a personal note I think we probably do need a policy or guideline that says when disambiguating with a place name the same form should be used as the place name's article but, as currently no such policy or guideline exists, a decision to move it to New Britain, Connecticut would have been a super vote. Dpmuk (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I still maintain that there is currently a conflict between "concise" and "recognizable" and so I don't think my decision was flaky. I will admit to have erred in not taking the current title into account although I will also note that no one commented on this. And, for my feelings on the recent move I'll copy from Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation:

I think the move carried out by User:Dicklyon was somewhat premature as I'd have like to seen more consensus [at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation] first, but that said it would be pointy to move it back as unless the discussion [at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation] takes an unexpected turn it would have ended up at the title anyway.

Dpmuk (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

But 3 of 4 supporters supported the RM as proposed. Apteva's statement about the alternative should have been enough to make it clear that it was wrong, but perhaps you weren't familiar with his style of RM contributions. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, I had no problem with the closing, personally. There was lots in the discussion that was not perfect. So? See WP:creed#bold. Andrewa (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see Apteva's only comment in the move discussion was "Just New Britain is fine for the parenthetical. The sources call it that." which I can't see how any reasonable person can read as a preference for New Britain, Connecticut. It's certainly possible to read it as being neutral but not as supporting the use of Connecticut. Even if they meant what you said it's not the closing admin's job to be aware of people's style of commenting. I would also add that this is not a vote and it's certainly not uncommon to determine that consensus is in favour of the one if they have the much stronger arguement. My analysis of the comments, with respect to disambiguation, was as follows:

• In ictu oculi - No comment on disambiguation
• Cúchullain - Supported the lack of Connecticut. Also effectively pointed out the precise requirement although they didn't directly point to the relevant policy.
• Apteva - commented on above.
• Blueboar - Supported Connecticut but used as arguement based on what was pointed out to be a false premise. Given that, there lack of further comment on the USPLACE issue, and there "minor" comment I gave this !vote not much weight when it came to how to disambiguate.
• Doncram - I interpreted this as having no preference as to how it should be disambiguated only that it should be. Although they use Connecticut the use of "something like" also makes it clear it was an example so can't really be seen as supporting Connecticut.
• Fiddlersmouth - No comment on disambiguation.
• Andrewa - Supported Connicticut with a policy based arguement based on the requirement to be "recognizable to readers".

As such, in my eyes, there was one strong policy based !vote on each side (Cúchullain and Andrewa) and possibly one weak vote on each side (Blueboar and Apteva). As such both in terms of numbers and strength of arguement things were pretty balanced. As it had to go somewhere what swayed it for me was the comment on what sources used. As I have previously said I probably erred in not considering it's current title although that was also not an arguement raised in the RM. Dpmuk (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My point about Apteva was just that if he offhandedly supports an alternative, it's almost certainly wrong. He's now indefinitely blocked and banned, partly for followed me around and making inane remarks on RMs, but mostly because of all the other people he pissed off in similar ways. And all those who didn't comment on the disambiguation were supporting the RM as proposed. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

How can you know that? It's not my job to make that sort of assumption. In ictu oculi commented before the issue was raised. They may have either not though about the disambiguation at all, as the main issue here was obviously the name, or assumed it was backed by policy and so a non-issue. Therefore assuming they supported the disambiguation as given was a leap I was not about to make. Fiddlersmouth commented after the issue had been raised but a lack of comment on disambiguation and a comment only aimed at the synagogue issue meant again it was not a jump I was about to make. And even if I had been prepared to make such a jump the fact that neither gave arguments about disambiguation meant their !vote on this issue would have been given very little weight and so may not have changed my reading of consensus anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I (obviously) had decided that a bold move was not the best way to go, but I thought and still think such a move could be justified by appeal to WP:SNOW, particularly as no sysop powers were required. At worst, it's complicated the discussion, but I'm not even convinced it's done that. We were already tying some interesting thoughtknots.

I have not yet noticed anyone propose to move it back, and hope not to. But if anyone seriously thinks we should, speak up.

Failing that, it would seem to me that we now have a strong consensus that Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) should now remain the title here. Wider discussion then belongs at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think "New Britain" is the better title and have reverted per BRD. My reasoning is the same as above: this is much more concise and distinguishes the article appropriately from other articles without the extra verbiage. USPLACE says nothing about what goes in disambiguators, and this one is perfectly recognizable compared to the other ambiguous articles, which is what matters here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To prevent further move-warring over this, I have opened a second RM (below) so we can properly settle the issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting per WP:BRD isn't edit warring, it is in fact the preferred course of action. I'll comment below.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's borderline IMO. You've had your say, and the consensus is clearly against you, and I find it very hard to believe that you can't see that. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Move Request 2 - re: disambiguation

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 05:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) → Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) – Following the previous RM (which focused on the name of the building), we now need to reach consensus on the most appropriate disambiguation. Examining the core criteria spelled out at WP:Article Titles: I don't think Recognizability and Naturalness are an issue (both disambiguations would be equally recognizable and natural)... Conciseness would favor "(New Britain)" as being the shortest... Precision, on the other hand, would favor "(New Britain, Connecticut)" to prevent confusion with the pacific island of New Britain. That leaves us with Consistency (how do we do disambiguate similar articles). Looking at our other articles on places named Temple B'Nai Israel, we have: Temple B'Nai Israel (Jackson, Tennessee) and Temple B'Nai Israel (Olean, New York). Indeed, looking through articles on other synagogues in the United States (which need disambiguation), it seems almost all of them use the "(City, State)" form of disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support New Britain is an island, not in Connecticut, or even the USA, so this disambiguatory term makes no sense. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A moot point, since there's no other existing article of this name for the island or any other place called "New Britain".--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. The policy is to look at the logic of the situation as well as the policies and guidelines. And to me, this has always been the overriding consideration... Wikipedia exists for readers, not editors (that's also policy somewhere), and readers are poorly served by confusing article titles. That should be a show-stopping argument, in my opinion, and if the rules don't support the same conclusion then this just shows us that the rules are wrong (which is probably at least part of the problem too). Andrewa (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, readers aren't served by adding cumbersome and unnecessary verbiage into article titles. The point of disambiguation is to distinguish one article from others with the same name, and the current title does that well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree that readers aren't served by adding cumbersome and unnecessary verbiage into article titles. Disagree that the shorter disambiguation achieves the point of disambiguation or that it does it well.

But I think this post identifies the problem well, and as such represents real progress. You are looking at the function of the disambiguator in isolation, while I and others are looking at the function of the entire article title. Perhaps this is where the guidelines need to be tweaked. The real bottom line is the reader's experience, rather than adherence to the letter of any particular policy or guideline... and that is policy. Andrewa (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I said above and in the previous RM, the current title is the most suitable. The proposed title is overly precise for disambiguation purposes, as there are no related articles associated with any other locality called "New Britain". According to WP:PRECISION: Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". As the nom says, the present title is also equally recognizable and natural and is obviously more concise than the proposed. Consistency is good, but not when it goes against the other article title criteria, and there isn't real consistency among articles using American placenames for disambiguation anyway. For one notable example, all of the articles in Category:Neighborhoods in Florida use "(City)" rather than "(City, Florida)". The current title appropriately distinguishes the article from all the other existing articles of this title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges... Yes, it does look like most of our articles on neighborhoods are disambiguated by just "(City)". However, the subject of this article is not a neighborhood... its a building (specifically a Synagogue)... and to be consistent, we need to see how other building articles (and especially those on Synagogues) are disambiguated. And the fact is, the vast majority of our articles on buildings (and especially Synagogues) do use the "(City, State)" format for disambiguation (see: Category:Synagogues in Connecticut, as well as Category:Synagogues in California, Category:Synagogues in New York, etc). We may have an inconsistency between projects on how we disambiguate... but we should at least try to be consistent within a project. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Equally recognizable? Disagree. If that's what recognizable means, then we should change WP:AT to use some other word. But I think it's clear enough... A title that is confusing is less recognizable than one that isn't. There may be other factors to consider, but the longer disambiguator is more recognizable, and this is a factor too. Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Readers don't distinguish between what's under one wikiproject or another. The bottom line is, among all articles that use American place names for disambiguation, there's no consistency, so an appeal to that point doesn't override the other article title criteria, namely that the title should be concise and no more precise than necessary to distinguish the article from others with the same title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think, despite the stringing [3], that this is replying to Blueboar, not to me. But it doesn't seem to address the issues they raise either. Andrewa (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Then let me use different words to make the same point... we should at least try to use a consistent format for articles that all fall into the same broad topic area (ie buildings in the US).

Agree, Blueboar [4]. But there are other considerations. There seems a rough consensus that the title Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) that we ended up with before was unsatisfactory, because of one or more of these other considerations. So the question now becomes, assuming we go for the longer disambiguator here, what is more important elsewhere, consistency or brevity? Or more specifically, do we change other titles to the longer version too, and which ones if so? This RM is probably not the place to answer these questions, but they do need to be answered. Andrewa (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Current disambiguator is misleading. Tassedethe (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The disambiguating term should be selected to maximize clarity. older ≠ wiser 15:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. As a general point, I think it's optimal to disambiguate with (State) alone when practical. Disambiguators are supposed to be precise, and if Foo (State) is enough to disambiguate a title from other Foos, great. In this case, though, there's Congregation B'nai Israel (Bridgeport, Connecticut), and American Jewish congregations can be referred to as "Temple" and "Congregation" fairly interchangeably. On the other hand, I could live with moving both of the B'nai Israels to (Connecticut) titles and using hatnotes. That might even be a better solution. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I could live with that too, but I think this proposal is superior. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. See my reasoning in the first RM above, and comments in this one above. Nothing has changed. I'm a bit surprised that anyone thought consensus on this was not already sufficiently demonstrated, but there you are. It is now, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:NATURAL, use only as much additional detail as necessary. There are no other temples named Temple B'Nai Israel in any other locations named New Britain.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - I note that no one (so far) has addressed the consistency issue... I would like to see some discussion on that. It seems almost universal for articles on building in the United States to use the "Name of building (City, State)" format for disambiguation. Why should this article not follow that consistent format? Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I would challenge that that is a universal truth at least in religious buildings as a whole. Many religious buildings employ comma disambiguation with just the city (see St. Andrew's Church as an example). That being said, the observation is entirely correct with regards to synagogues in the United States (see Temple Sinai or Temple_Beth-El). I'm not immediately inclined to change my position as I don't feel the additional disambiguation is necessary but it's potentially a subject that requires wider discussion as to whether WP:USPLACE applies to parenthesis disambiguation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Totally agree that this requires discussion, see my comment [5] above. Andrewa (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(I have started the ball rolling on that discussion... see: WT:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Does WP:USPLACE apply to parenthetical disambiguation?.)

Thanks, Blueboar [6]... any particular reason you haven't signed your last few posts? Andrewa (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No reason... just wasn't paying attention and forgot to type tildes before I hit save. My apologies. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I know the feeling... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – per the previous RM and the discussion in which this was the obvious consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - City, State doesn't seem too much detail (speaking as a foreigner), and there is more than one of them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The standard for recognizability in our titles is set in terms of someone who is familiar with the topic of the article in question. In this case we need to consider someone familiar with the temple of this name in New Britain, Connecticut. Such a person will recognize Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) as referring to that temple. More precision is unnecessary.

  If our goal were to make topics recognizable from their titles to people unfamiliar with these topics, we would have to change over 90% of our titles. If you don't believe me, click on SPECIAL:RANDOM 20 times, and keep track of how many topics are recognizable to you from the title alone.

  This proposal suggests changing this title for a reason that would apply to changing the vast majority of our titles. I, for one, don't think that's a wise precedent to be setting. --B2C 19:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The topic in question is the notable architecture of a former masonic temple. I didn't realise I had to know US geography as well to read it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Fiddlersmouth. Or to approach it another way, B2C raises some important theoretical issues here, but the practical issue of reader experience seems relatively obvious. B2C's conclusion here tells us far more about the value (not) of these relatively abstract notions than about the merits of this particular case, which are relatively clear. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support This seems like an obvious case. New Britain, Connecticut is not the primary topic for New Britain, so the state name is needed regardless of how one feels about USPLACE and regardless of the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Does WP:USPLACE apply to parenthetical disambiguation?. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. While the title may meet the needs for a concise title, it fails WP:PRECISE since the term is not unambiguous. We simply can not disambiguate an ambiguous name with an ambiguous disambiguation. Also the current title fails WP:NATURAL since that definition means we should expect the building to be in New Britain which it clearly is not. I also reject the idea that since we have a large number of titles that most readers many not find recognizable, we need to create more of these. The current title also fails WP:AT which clearly states Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and... (bold text added for emphasis). So clearly if readers are assumed to recognize place1 as place1, then using place1 for a disambiguation for something in place2 can not be right! Which is more important, blind adherence to a strict interpretation of a guideline or considering the negative impact on readers and editors who have to deal with the fall out from any ill advised results from those strict opinions? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.