Talk:Tower 42

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move back to Tower 42. Rai-me 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• 25 Old Broad Street → Tower 42 — Tower 42 is the name in common usage, as per WP:NAME — Paulbrock (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 naming conventions.

• Support - not clear why it was oringally moved from Tower 42. 25 Old Broad Street is the postal address but means little to anyone that doesn't work there. Tower 42, or possibly Natwest Tower, is how the general public would search for it, as per WP:Name. Paulbrock (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - nobody calls it by its street address, not even construction journals or property magazines. Clearly the article should be restored to its original title of Tower 42. Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The addition of previous buildings on the "site" mean the article is now about the location and not just the building currently on site.--20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - agree. And please fix the other buildngs which were renamed by the same editor. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Each tower in the UK has a whole range of possible names which could all equally be considered as the standard name used most commonly used by the general public. To avoid any disputes regarding what the common name of a building is, I personally think the postal address which is the official name (as far as the local authorities are concerned) and what the name was called during the architecture stage (before investment) should be used. Any colloquial names or brand names which are commonly used can be and are currently stated in the first line of the article. I say this because the names of buildings change over time and to prevent changing the article title, every time a new owner renames it, the postal address should be used. I would like to draw attention to the Millennium Dome, O2 arena naming dispute and article split over the name. Some people were suggesting one article, some were suggesting two and some even three articles, this was all over the name of the building. The argument by Paulbrock says there could possibly be two different names, what if people cannot agree which name is more commonly used. I say avoid future naming disagreements by standardising the articles to the postal address where "common" names are used.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Tower 42 and all the other towers which have been changed without any consultation by Lucy Marie should certainly use the correct contemporary name used on that particular buildings website or above the door. Surely cannot see Burj Dubai or the Empire State Building to be changed to an anonymous street name so why should tall buildings in the UK? Also Lucy Marie what if the street name changes? Surely that would destroy your argument for a standardised name based on street name and number which would never change. --Wrh1973 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Tower 42 is both the official name ([1]) and the most common name ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) for this building. Rai-me 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The street address is clearly not the common name in this instance. Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The common name is in dispute and ambiguity is removed by the street address. What are redirects for?--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, the other names should be redirects. But we still need to choose the best article name. Andrewa (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment What is the definition of a "common name"? and how can it be universally applied? The definitoin cannot be "the name used by most people" or phrases like that due to high use of weasle words such as "most people"--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support The building has a clear unambiguous current name. Ditto for all of the other butchered article names. --Mr Thant (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Please look at the wider context of the re-naming and the proposed policy changes to the naming convention.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no change to the naming convention. Per WP:NC, and as mentioned above: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Please see the several links I have provided; Tower 42 is the clear name that would be common to English speakers. The street address is not, and moving the article away from the common name to the address is against Wikipedia policy. Rai-me 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

The most relevant part of the article naming policy (WP:NAME):

"article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Paulbrock (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What is reasonable minimal ambiguity? I think that because "some people" still call the building the Natwest tower rather than tower 42 "reasonable ambiguity" is created. The naming by the postal address removes all ambiguity on two levels. Firstly no other article will have the same name and secondly, it is a name used by neither party so one side cannot argue it should be called the other. The "common names" are given in the first lines which immediately tells people if it is the building they either are or are not looking for.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

...and so rather than do either, you'll do something else that neither likes at all - Henry Higgins. Suggest a careful read of WP:NC (which you'll note is official Wikipedia policy despite the name). And as I indicated before, I'm trying to get some discussion going on the general question of systematic naming conventions. See User talk:Andrewa/systematic names, which may be a better place to discuss making changes to WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For this article, I now would say the article has changed from being about just the building to the actual site itself. This is with the addition of the "Previous buildings on the site" section.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The section on previous buildings is a good idea, and if any are notable then they should have their own articles, under their own names. But the focus of this article remains and should remain the notable building. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then but there must be a central place where all of the information is collated, for separate articles to branch off from. It is also not known if the building will become notable in comparison to buildings such and the Empire state building or the Eiffel Tower.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree that it is time to close this discussion and move the page back? 7 support to 1 oppose seems to be consensus. Cheers, Rai-me 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'd like to see the other towers reverted back too (London Bridge Tower, Bishopsgate Tower, etc). Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The only one opposing the name change is the one who renamed the article earlier. Discussion has gone on for over a week. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved back almost all of the articles originally moved by Lucy-marie per the discussion on this talk page and on that of Shard London Bridge. However, this page, Shard London Bridge, and the Bishopsgate Tower all need to be moved by admins in order to return to their original names. Cheers, Rai-me 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussions on most of the pages have not been concluded and the arguments need to be reviewed by an independent third party. The pages should not be moved until the arguments on each page individually are completed. Each page must be treated independently and not as a block.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear that you moved each of the pages originally without any discussion or consensus, and therefore they all could have been moved back immediately. Discussion is only taking place on two pages to begin with, and there is no need to begin discussions on each page where there is already an overwhelming consensus to move pages back to the names following official policy per WP:NC. So far, you, the person who moved each page, has been the only person to oppose a move. Cheers, Rai-me 13:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who take part in the discussion should not close or implement in favour of their desired outcome. An independent third party should be called in to review and close the discussion appropriately. Discussions on each page are essential as each article is unique and has clear differences. That is like saying all the Loony Tunes characters should be discussed in the same blanket way, just because they are Loony Tunes characters. I say requested moves, mergers etc should be done in the same way as a requested deletion. This is because a wide range of independent opinions would be discussed and the discussions would be closed cleanly and remove ambiguity.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here looks very simple to me. It appears to be you against everyone else. Am I missing something? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing your judgment, I am stating could you review the arguments and close the discussion cleanly and if you are an admin move the article appropriately, If the weight of the arguments deems it so.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No that's not how it works. The community debates it, and decides the outcome. Then someone comes along and states "Hey admin servent, do our bidding, move the page". Do you see the difference? I do not have the authority to decide the matter. Having said that, the community clearly did decide the matter in favour of moving so I will go ahead and do it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then in my opinion there should be a much more formal way of going about these things or wars can start and consensus can be easily muddied. You will say but in this case consensus was clear but I am now talking in general terms.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In general the easiest way to ensure concencus is to propose the change on the talk page first. That way you can test the waters so to speak, only be bold in moving pages if you are sure that there is a good chance the change will stick. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.