Talk:House at 103 Roslyn Avenue

article name
This article was started at its NRHP listing name "House at 103 Roslyn Avenue" and then was moved by an editor to "103 Roslyn Avenue" with edit summary "This title seems more appropriate". Other Oyster Bay area articles have similarly been renamed from their NRHP names, and I'd like for this to be the location for discussion of all of them.

For this article, I moved it back to "House at 103 Roslyn Avenue". Note, the brief reason why this house is wikipedia-notable is that it is NRHP-listed, and "House at 103 Roslyn Avenue" is its NRHP listing name. The expanded reason for wikipedia notability is that NRHP listing conveys that the place has been deemed historically important by an extensive process of nomination and review by experts applying 4 criteria for NRHP listing (architectural significance, association with an important historical event or person, etc.), and that there is extensive documentation available in the form of the NRHP nomination and related documents.

About which name is correct, there is documentation in the NRHP's NRIS database and in the NRHP nomination document that this place is named, referred to as "House at 103 Roslyn Avenue". So far there is no documentation of it being named "103 Roslyn Avenue". Just because one or a few of us editors might think the shorter name woulda been better for the NRHP program to use, that doesn't justify our applying a different name for the article. If the shorter name can be shown to be the current, common name of the place, by showing it appears in multiple recent sources, then maybe the NRHP listing name can be shown to be outdated, and it could be justified to use the shorter name. But, for now it should stay at the NRHP listing name, in my pretty strong opinion. --doncram (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In some cases, the picture shows the "house" and the words "house at" aren't needed in the article name. The name isn't appropriate for a title but in the article it does mention that it is a house. So really, the words "house at" are deemed inappropriate for a title as it confuses the reader as the words "house at" aren't justice. Also, those words do not add any extra information as the words 103 Roslyn Avenue are enough. For example, if you were going to visit this house, you wouldn't say that you were going to visit the house at103 Roslyn Avenue, you would say you were visiting 103 Roslyn Avenue  Puffin  ''Lets talk! 16:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Doncram that the article should retain the NRHP formal name House at 103 Roslyn Avenue. Someone at the National Park Service decided to standardize these names with "House at" as prefix to the address and that decision should be respected.--Pubdog (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for replying. I would say the historic site that i was going to visit is "House at 103 Roslyn Avenue", which is of course located at 103 Roslyn Avenue, like i would say i was going to visit the Adam-Derby House, which is located at 166 Lexington Avenue. The historic site name is not the same thing as its address. Basically this is about our using reliable sources, and avoiding coining new terms/names/doing original research, and otherwise complying with Wikipedia policy/guidelines/practice for article naming conventions. This applies also for other places listed within National Register of Historic Places listings in Oyster Bay (town), New York: I posted invitations at User talk:Puffin, User talk:Pubdog, and User talk:Mr. Berty to discuss here. If we can't reach agreement here, then we could make this an RFC and ask for wider comment, but i hope we can just clarify this here. --doncram (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * House at 112 Sea Cliff Avenue, which i also just moved back
 * House at 115 Central Avenue, which may have been moved to 115 Central Avenue and which i haven't yet moved
 * House at 137 Prospect Avenue
 * House at 173 Sixteenth Avenue
 * House at 176 Prospect Avenue
 * House at 18 Seventeenth Avenue
 * House at 9 Locust Place
 * House at 19 Locust Place
 * House at 195 Prospect Avenue
 * House at 199 Prospect Avenue
 * House at 207 Carpenter Avenue
 * House at 240 Sea Cliff Avenue
 * House at 285 Sea Cliff Avenue
 * House at 332 Franklin Avenue
 * House at 362 Sea Cliff Avenue
 * House at 378 Glen Avenue
 * House at 52 Eighteenth Avenue
 * House at 58 Eighteenth Avenue
 * House at 65 Twentieth Avenue
 * I would rather side with Puffin for the same reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Berty (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just post a RfC anyway? It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 19:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not go to a world-wide request for the Wikipedia community of editors to comment on something routine. We should first look at basic policy and guidelines, specifically: wp:COMMONNAME which starts "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."
 * My running a quick Google search on "103 Roslyn Avenue" yields three relevant hits displaying "House at 103 Roslyn Avenue" (at a webpage www.stoppingpoints.com, at the wikipedia article, and at this page in archiplanet). It yields no relevant hits on "103 Roslyn Avenue".  Also we have the NRHP's NRIS database source and the NRHP nomination document showing "House at 103 Roslyn Avenue", so that is 4 usages with "House of" and no usages without.
 * Wp:commonname goes on to suggest "When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above." Here there is a 100% majority of usages by the reliable English language sources.
 * Please do show any usages you have in reliable sources showing any different name. But, if there are none forthcoming, I do think "House at 103 Roslyn Avenue" is pretty clearly best by Wikipedia policies, and that we don't need to ask others to get involved. --doncram (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I then rest my case. Seeming that you have gathered lots of info about this, I now think that it should be the current title. I don't think we need an RfC, because this discussion is pretty anal and borin...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ (excuse me)g. We wouldn't get any answers! It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 17:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)