Talk:Waverly, Tennessee, tank car explosion

I remember this as a young girl. I was 11 years old and lived in Waverly at the time.I stood in the distance from a bridge to see the mangled train cars the day before the explosion. 6 years ago, I went back to Waverly and they actually have a small “train derailment museum” with photos of the derailment and aftermath and it is quite a sight to see.

Jennifer

Requested move 21 December 2013

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) 00:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Waverly, Tennessee, tank car explosion → Waverly tank car explosion – No tank car explosion happened in other place of the same name. The article should be concise, so the disambiguation is unnecessary. Quest for Truth (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose: WP:USPLACE suggests not omitting the state name in this case. The suggested modification also introduces confusion over whether "Waverly" is the name of a place or something else, such as the name of the company that owned or manufactured the tank car, or some particular tank car type. Perhaps if a WP:COMMONNAME argument can be made for the topic (not based on sources local to the region, which might assume familiarity with local place names), then the move could be justified, but the suggestion seems to be motivated only by a desire to be concise. The nominator doesn't mention whether there is an argument for a common name in this case. However, I notice that both non-Tennessee sources cited in the article include 'Tennessee' in their title, which makes it appear that the state name is an important disambiguator for this topic. In fact, 'Tennessee' may be more important than 'Waverly'. Neither of those sources include 'Waverly' in their title. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. A descriptive title only needs enough detail to distinguish the topic, and the proposed version does. WP:USPLACE doesn't say anything about articles that aren't actually on, well, U.S. places. The current title is awkward and unwieldy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. The common titling method here is to identify the nearest civic location of the incident in question, not the general state. "Waverly tank car explosion" is just fine. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – as in USPLACE, the inclusion of the state name makes Waverly recognizable as a US place. Without it, Waverly could be the name of a person, a company, or who knows what. No book uses the proposed title. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Waerly/Waverley is highly ambiguous, tank car explosion could be anything, and the inclusion of the state greatly helps with recognizability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This does not make sense. How do misspellings of "Waverly" factor into this, and how is "tank car explosion" ambiguous? — Huntster (t @ c) 16:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.