Talk:Union Square, San Francisco/Archive 1

Comment from 2007
This article could use some serious editing and expansion for style, content, encyclopedic tone, and links and references. Also, it is best to follow Wikipedia convention by avoiding redundant discussion of things described elsewhere -- link to related articles and merely point to them in the article about Union Square. Wikidemo 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Move
I think it is better to move this article to Union Square, San Francisco. This title is too long and the word California is really unnecessary. Chris! my talk 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

I think moving this article to Union Square (San Francisco) might be better. Similar to Union Square (New York City). Chris! my talk 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , 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. Naming conventions (places) appears to cover this case exactly, and it is consistent to the other article names listed at the disambig at Union Square. Andrewa 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur, though the former should remain a redir to the latter.—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Raime 13:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support 71.105.96.4 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
The naming of other neighborhood articles in Category:San Francisco neighborhoods should also be considered. I believe there is currently no standard for naming articles on neighborhoods. If this is moved, we might as well move the rest of the neighborhood articles. --Polaron | Talk 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. Have a look at Naming conventions (places) and particularly Naming conventions (places). This appears to me to be the relevant standard, but there also appears to be a local convention which has been used up until now for the San Francisco area, and probably needs some discussion. I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area. Andrewa 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think Wikipedia policies should have authority over local conventions. But I welcomed any comments. Chris! my talk 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But that's just it... The current Wikipedia guideline is to follow the local conventions, if these reflect prevalent usage. Andrewa 11:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Redir
It's suggested above that Union Square, San Francisco should remain as a redir to Union Square (San Francisco) if the move goes ahead... Sure, why not? That would be the normal course of action unless the redir were to be proposed for deletion at Redirects for discussion, and I can't see any grounds for that at all.

Note that, in terms of WP:RFD, this would be considered an old redirect. In the case of a moved article, the age of the resulting redirect is measured from the creation of the article, not from the time it became a redirect. This is because what we're interested in preserving is links from search engines and other websites, and those start accumulating as soon as the article is created... in fact they accumulate far more rapidly in the case of an article that later becomes a redirect than in the case of a redirect that has always been a redirect. Andrewa 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. Chris! my talk 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


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

''The only justification for moving this article is for the sake of consistency, chiefly with a location in New York. In all the relevant categories, however, the comma format is the dominant one, which nullifies that argument. If a consensus could be reached for moving all such articles, then that would be a different matter, but for now there seems no good reason for it. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.'' --Stemonitis 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)