Talk:Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Florida)

Claim to be oldest
Ahavath Chesed in Jacksonville appears to be 1- years older. Elan26 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Congregation Ahavath Chesed was organized in 1880, according to the same source as Temple Beth-El, namely the American Jewish Yearbook of 1907, page 150; making it several years 'younger' than Temple Beth-El, that was organized in 1876. Rangasyd (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources and facts
I am trying to pin down the history of the Jewish cumminity in Penaascola and of Beth-ed, and I am having trouble. I cannot, for example, find a reliable source for the construction of the earliest synagogue building. Lots of congregations are organized and pray in some space or other before building a synagogue. I find it diffucult to believe that a congregation in that era was created de novo in 1876 with a charter and a building the same year, but no earlier history. Usually the cemetery was organized first, then a congregation, then (after they get the money together) a building. almost none of the info in the article is sourced. Please help. Elan26 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Requested move - re: disambiguation

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no move. --  tariq abjotu  10:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida) → Temple Beth-El (Pensacola) – I am filing this to prevent a potential move war. Consensus of community is needed over which is the better disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose move - The standard for disambiguation in other articles on Synagogues seems to to favor the "(City, State)" format. See the various sub-cats at Category:Synagogues in the United States by state to see what the normal practice is. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:NATURAL, use only as much additional detail as necessary. There are no other temples named Temple Beth-El in any other Pensacola's..--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to place a qualifier to my comment. As I have also stated at the request move discussion at Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) that a wider discussion concerning whether WP:USPLACE applies to parenthesis disambiguation is likely appropriate before future requested moves are processed. Like MelanieN, I'd like to wait until after the decision at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) is completed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See below. Andrewa (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Labatt. This is over-precise; there is no other temple of this name in any other Pensacola, or even any other Pensacola to confuse it with. The "Florida" is just unnecessary verbiage, which WP:PRECISION says to avoid. There's no particular consistency in parentheticals on Florida topics; for instance all ambiguous articles in Category:Neighborhoods in Florida use (City) instead of (City, Florida), so that shouldn't override the other article title criteria.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – there being more than one Pensacola, the state name is useful here. This RM to test the limits of minimalism has no other useful purpose, as far as I can see.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've come to the view, see discussion below, that the default should be to use the longer disambiguator. Also, the support arguments above rely on a controversial and I think mistaken interpretation of policy. I note that identical arguments have been proposed against the longer disambiguator for Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) ( and scroll down to the end of the second diff), where the issue is far clearer. If we accept that the case for calling that article Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) rather than Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) is weak, then this suggests that these same arguments are also weak here. Andrewa (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally Oppose such a move, but I believe no decision should be made here until consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification, in case people don't want to wait for that closure: At that discussion I am favoring a rule of thumb that the disambiguation format should be the same as the title of the article about the disambiguator. Applying that rule of thumb to this case would say that the article title here should be Temple Beth-El (Pensacola, Forida), as it currently is. That is why I oppose the proposed move. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: See below. No change of my vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "(City, State)" disambiguation is standard in practice, and is simply best, as it makes it clear that the disambiguating phrase is a U.S. place, no confusion about what it is.  Also, I rather object to what could be called a "false nomination" of the change, by the nominator, who does not support the proposed change.  It seems wrong to me to call for community input on a fake proposal.  If you don't advocate the change, don't cost a whole host of people the time to consider your false proposal. -- do  ncr  am  19:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I note that Pensacola is unambiguous, so the main concern with the shorter disambiguator at Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) does not arise here. The meaning here seems to be the primary meaning of Pensacola, with Pensacola, Oklahoma being relatively obscure.

However I also note that several of the contributors at that other discussion and here have stated that they think consistency in article titling is very important. So I ask, if this RM goes ahead, would that then be seen as an argument in favour of preferring Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) over Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain, Connecticut) for the title of that other article?

If the answer to that question is yes, then by contraposition that would be an argument against this move. Or in other words, if we want consistency, then we'd need to go with the longer name here too, as it's needed in other cases.

But if the answer is no (and only then), there's no problem. Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well... if we really want to talk about being consistent, then we need to look beyond just the two articles currently with move requests. There are hundreds of articles on buildings in the US that use the "(City, State)" format for disambiguation.  Are we really prepared to move all of them to the "(City)" format?  Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised it's only hundreds. It does seem poor use of our resources.


 * See also There are somewhere in the range of 5,000-15,000 usages of (City, State) in names of NRHP-listed places. It's not just buildings. Andrewa (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm moved to ask, who cares? Or to be more constructive, can we imagine any scenario in which the reader is in any significant way disadvantaged by the inclusion of the state (or country) in the disambiguator?


 * The other side of this is less clear. There are probably cases in which no reader will be disadvantaged by the omission of the state, country etc, but these are trickier to identify. So perhaps, the default should be to include the longer disambiguator? I'm coming to that view. But I think Dohn joe also makes a good point about leeway. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Leeway is fine... there are always exceptions to any generalized rule (that's why WP:Ignore all rules is a policy). The question is whether this article should be an exception to the generalized rule.   Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes... but the question in that more general discussion is, can that rule be more helpful? One way is to explicitly state in the rule that there is some editor discretion likely to be needed in this particular area, and (without wanting to put words into their mouth) I think that this is what Dohn joe is getting at. Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Which should happen first
It's suggested above that no decision should be made here until consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names).

Either order can work. If it were to be decided to relist this RM pending a decision there, we'd need to post a heads-up there to avoid the deadly embrace of A waiting for B which is waiting for A, as it was suggested there right at the start of the discussion that we should wait and watch two particular RMs as examples before making a decision, and this is one of those two. (And in that spirit, many from the more general debate have also contributed at both of the RMs in question.)

But I think these two should both be closed normally. We need to be aware that WP:PLACE is under discussion, and I think we are. And some concrete examples are very helpful to the more general discussion, and all the more so if decisions can be made on the examples, as seems likely here.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the discussion on the rules isn't just about changing them. Several editors have expressed the opinion that the rules already support the longer disambiguators. Andrewa (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.