Talk:Winthrop Square (Financial District, Boston)

Article title
I think further disambiguation may be required here. Charlestown is part of Boston, so readers may confuse Winthrop Square (Boston) and Winthrop Square (Charlestown, Boston). Perhaps this article should be moved to Winthrop Square (Financial District, Boston)? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 November 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: Moved. There are clear and strong arguments made for easily removing the current ambiguity in the title through the Financial Distrcit specification. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Winthrop Square (Boston) → Winthrop Square (Financial District, Boston) – Further disambiguation is required because Wikipedia has the entry Winthrop Square (Charlestown, Boston). Charlestown is part of Boston. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Colonestarrice (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)  — Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure it’s necessary given there’s a disambiguation page for the two articles. A “(financial district)” addendum doesn’t help the average reader. Seasider53 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the stub-like nature and minimal traffic of both articles, merging them to Financial District, Boston and Charlestown, Boston would resolve the problem. 162 etc. (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would leave this one where it is and move the Charlestown one to either Training Field or Training Field (Boston) ("Training Field" is the more common name used in both sources for that article), or merge to Charlestown, Boston as suggested above. Station1 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: No opposition to Training Field if editors think that's the best title based on sourcing. I think both sites are notable, and this is not a merge discussion, so I think we should take that (non-)solution off the table. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this one has 93 views and the Charlestown one has 84[|Winthrop_Square_(Charlestown,_Boston)] so no case for a PDAB.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * can you clarify what your preference would be? Seasider53 (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposed "Winthrop Square (Financial District, Boston)" which is you're proposal . Even if we move the other to a different title namely Training Field this title would still be ambiguous.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not the proposer. The "financial district" modifier relies on the reader knowing where the financial district is in Boston, so I don't see how it helps. Seasider53 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the downtown one was created this week, so your view-count link isn't a reliable argument in this case. Seasider53 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a much higher threshold for partial disambiguation so even if there's a bias its still unlikely it would pass and I'd support a different title if anyone has a better one just that the current one is ambiguous.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 15:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Nom identifies a genuine problem and proposes the obvious solution, which seems to me to tick all the boxes. A redirect from seems harmless enough for the moment, but that title isn't terribly recognisable to most of us, to the point that I think we would need to put a redir hatnote in this article pointing to training field in that case. So while that redir is OK, not a good option for the article title IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There might be a misunderstanding here. Training Field is the common name of the one in Charlestown; it would not be the title of, or a redirect to, this article. By moving the Charlestown article to its common name, we would remove the title ambiguity of Winthrop Square, and would need only a hatnote on each to avoid any possible confusion. Station1 (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I second this. Seasider53 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving the other one would not necessarily remove the ambiguity, even if the Charlestown one has another name that is as common perhaps per WP:NATURAL or more as long as its known as "Winthrop Square" at least sometimes this title is ambiguous.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that could be handled with a hatnote. According to the Boston Landmarks Commission, "In the 1840s, the park was named 'Winthrop Square,' a name that is rarely used today", referring to Training Field, so it's not that likley someone expects the Charletown one to be at this title. Station1 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well put, Crouch Swale. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a misunderstanding, and it is a common one. See the reply above by Crouch Swale, I can't explain it any more clearly than that. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the very fact that the other one was created at the base name title (though it didn't need disambiguation then) which though did mention "Training Field" and the fact Training Field is a red link is strong evidence at the very least the other is ambiguous with "Winthrop Square".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. I often initially forget to create redirects from a subject’s other names when I create articles. It should have been done here, but that’s an oversight of the editor. It shouldn’t mean that the place in question is more commonly known as Winthrop Square. Seasider53 (talk)<
 * I thought was saying that Training Field would redirect here and therefore we would need to put a "redirect" hatnote on this article, and that Training Field would not be a good title for this article. Training Field, however, is in Charlestown. That's why I mentioned a possible misunderstanding. Station1 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just reread what I wrote, specifically Support. Nom identifies a genuine problem and proposes the obvious solution... A redirect from seems harmless enough for the moment, but that title isn't terribly recognisable to most of us, to the point that I think we would need to put a redir hatnote in this article pointing to training field in that case. So while that redir is OK, not a good option for the article title IMO. I cannot imagine why there is any doubt as to what I supported. Nom proposed renaming this article currently at Winthrop Square (Boston) to Winthrop Square (Financial District, Boston). I supported that and still do. My mention of training field (with whatever capitalisation) was mainly just to reject that as an alternative title for the article currently at Winthrop Square (Boston). Whether or not that redirect is a good idea doesn't affect this RM, and while sorting it out here would have been good, it seems to just have confused the issue. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is completely understood that you support the proposal, and there's no problem with that. What I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to point out is that you "reject [Training Field] as an alternative title for the article currently at Winthrop Square (Boston)", but that was never suggested as an alternative title. The subject of the article currently at Winthrop Square (Boston) was never called Training Field. It is the article currently at Winthrop Square (Charlestown, Boston) that I proposed might be renamed "Training Field", which is the more WP:Common name for that article's topic, but completely incorrect as a title or redirect for this article currently at Winthrop Square (Boston). Sorry if I was unclear and I hope I'm clearer now, but if not, I'll drop it. Station1 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2021 (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.