Talk:Hebrew Tabernacle of Washington Heights

Requested move 23 December 2021

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus - The nom is arguing consistency with other articles the name of which has changed, the oppose !voters are arguing that the actually notability of the article comes from its present title, there is no consensus here. No sense in relisting as there has been only one !vote since the last relist. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist (New York City) → Hebrew Tabernacle of Washington Heights – The subject of the article underwent a change in name, as indicated with sources in the article itself 2603:7000:2143:8500:ADC0:F198:361D:97DE (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's the building that's notable, not the congregation, and it's listed on the NRHP under its current name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The building has had a name for half a century. That of the synagogue that it has been, for half a century. Nor is the article "notable because of the now non-existent church" - that argument leave me nonplused. The title of the article is not "Building on corner x, because it is neither the Christian nor the Jewish congregation that matter." And the article reflects reference to it in RSs, during that half century. Furthermore, we don't follow NRHP. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A943:46:CC9F:B993 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was notable because it was a church. I said it's notable as a building and only as a building because it is listed on the NRHP. Our usual practice in these cases is to retain the name under which it is listed on the appropriate heritage list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The concrete and steel of the building and the synagogue are both notable. That's why when it comes to synagogues, we don't just mention the concrete and steel. They are both treated in our synagogue articles, in the same article. This building happens to have had a name for the last half century. And it used in all manner of RS in that period of time. The articles using that name, plus the articles about the concrete and steel, are sufficient to meet GNG. We don't have to use old names for buildings - just as we don't, obviously, use old names for countries and cities and boxers and races. It's irrelevant what the NRHP naming convention may - we follow wp rules, not their rules, and if their rule would have us name articles if applied to non-buildings as Cassius Clay and New Amsterdam .. we don't care. I think you are ignoring the point that unlike NRHP, which focuses SOLELY on the edifice, our articles on synagogues focus on both the edifice and the - here half century - congregation. And even when it is an edifice - take a look at what we do whenever a sports stadium changes its name. And I don't know that NRHP, for its part, gives a hoot about GNG and our naming conventions. Nor should they.


 * Consider the MetLife Building. We do not call it the Pam Am Building. Because that is not consistent with the Project's approach. If the NRHP, which does not follow the wp approach, were to designate it - would you militate for us to change the title of the article to Pan Am Building?


 * The same holds for all similar buildings that have been renamed on wp articles. Paramount Plaza. 1 Rockefeller Plaza . One Liberty Plaza. Palmolive Building. Schultz Building. Total Plaza . The Storey. And so on.


 * Consider stadiums. Consider FirstEnergy Stadium . If the NRHP follows its convention and honors it with a designation, are you going to militate that now we have to change the wikipedia article to Cleveland Browns Stadium? Will we have to rename Guaranteed Rate Field as Comiskey Park? Shall we then rename Minute Maid Park as Astros Field? And Oracle Park as Pacific Bell Park? And Progressive Field as Jacobs Field? And Rogers Centre as Skydome? The list goes on and on.


 * Of course we wouldn't. Because - even with stadiums, we adopt the new name upon the building bearing a new name. That's the wikipedia way. And it matters not at all what the NRHP way is .. god bless, them if they want to name everything by the first name it ever had. That's not the way of the project.

2603:7000:2143:8500:9C15:8AA9:E7FE:C6AE (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that the synagogue is itself notable? Would it survive an AfD if it wasn't an historic building? I doubt it. As far as I can see, it's notable merely because it's a listed historic building and its article is therefore titled as it is. That doesn't apply to the other buildings you mention. Completely different cases. That's not the way of the project. Yes, it is in these cases. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. It does appear that it is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places by its historic name, even though its current name was known at the time.. Since it is notable as a historic building, I think the title should stay where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)