Talk:First Church of Christ, Scientist (Scranton, Pennsylvania)

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 to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is named after First Church of Christ, Scientist, but seems to be mostly about the Children's Library building. I understand this building was the former home to the church, but it seems a bit misleading to title it this way. I propose moving this page to Lackawanna County Children's Library and restructuring the article to be about the library while retaining the historical information about the church. Don't want to step on any toes, though, so please share your thoughts. -Tomdobb (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. This article is about an historic church building which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The fact that it is now a children's museum is really incidental. The article is not about the children's library. If you want an article about the children's library, then create one for it. clariosophic (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC) clariosophic (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with creating a new article is that it ends up being kind of redundant and confusing. Since the building featured in this article IS the children's library. The library is located in the building and the address listed in this article is for the children's library. The article really contains very little information about the church at all. The argument could be made that the fact that this was a church is incidental as it has nothing to do with the current function of the building.-Tomdobb (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. There isn't really anything about the library in the article, other than that it is there. The article isn't about its current function; it is about its historical significance. Make a redirect for not, that's enough unless the library is notable enough to deserve its own article and one is created. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point is that the current function of the building (library) and the purpose of this article (historical building) are not mutually exclusive. The article can (and probably should) be about both. The name as it is just comes off as misleading. For a similar situation, I'd cite Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel which is a historic railroad station previously referred to as Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Station. The article is under its current name though and details both its current status (hotel) and its historic significance. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) (which, admittedly, has become inactive) states buildings should use "Common name, plus the City / country where necessary." The article title is not the common name for this building. -Tomdobb (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2008 (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.