Talk:New Point Loma Lighthouse

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

New Point Loma Lighthouse → Point Loma Lighthouse – All of the sources I saw called this the Point Loma Lighthouse. Yes, there is an old one with this name but that is disambiguated and this one appears to be the primary use of the name. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. No evidence "New ..." is even used, much less more commonly used than "Point Loma Lighthouse". The proposed title already redirects here. This seems noncontroversial to me. --B2C 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually I had just changed the redirect, but it had no inbound links. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Several sources use the current title as the name for this lighthouse, and others use "new" as a descriptor, which would also argue for natural disambiguation (which looks the same for WP titling purposes). Also, plenty of sources use plain "Point Loma Lighthouse" to refer to the original or "old" lighthouse: see here, here, here, here, and here for a sampling (I had difficulty getting a good search that only included "point loma lighthouse and didn't exclude "old..." or "new..."). Dohn joe (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Also - I'm not sure about changing the redirect. My guess is that most people searching for "point loma lighthouse" are looking for the original one, but I'm not sure how to find that out. Dohn joe (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  And many of those links that you provided use 'new' as opposed to 'New'. So, 'new' is a descriptor and hence not part of the title. You are right this is difficult to sort out using searches. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose because the primary use of the term "Point Loma Lighthouse" is the historic landmark "old" lighthouse, not the run-of-the-mill currently operating "new" lighthouse. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The redirect page "Point Loma Lighthouse" pointed to the "old" lighthouse for six years; during that time it received an average of one to three hits a day. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose based on source research reported above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Actually, the official name of the light is "Point Loma Light", so that is where I would move it, but the suggested move is better than leaving it where it is. As for MelanieN's "the run-of-the-mill currently operating "new" lighthouse", I point out that the light is one of five built to an innovative design in 1891. Three of its sisters -- Plum Island Range Rear Light, La Pointe Light, and Duluth South Breakwater Inner Light -- are on the NRHP. That's a far cry from "run-of-the-mill". And, of course, it seems a little strange to call a 112 year old structure "New". . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 09:23, 16 June 2013 (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.