Talk:Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park

File:Gateway Geyser nozzle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gateway Geyser nozzle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 16 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. As written, the article is equally about the memorial park as it is about the Gateway Geyser located there. It seems the simplest solution is to move the article to reflect this expanded scope. There was a suggestion that the articles be split instead, but only a minority of participants favored this, and it would require more work to create two articles that would necessarily have some overlap anyway. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Gateway Geyser → Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park – While the fountain existed before the rest of the park, it is now but one element within the park, and I am preparing to expand this article to include the overlook and statue as well. Expansion is one of the reasons for moving a page (bullet #5), when the scope of an article broadens. There may not be enough resources available to establish a new, separate article for the park and still keep this one, which means to cover both in one article, I believe it should follow Wikipedia's naming convention for places rather than for works of art as it is currently. This would follow the example of "The Way", probably the most recognizable element of Laumeier Sculpture Park, where the individual sculpture is covered within the article named for the whole park. In this case, the fountain name, Gateway Geyser would remain in bold in the article lead due to a redirect that would be created here, and this would have no impact on searchability on the web or within Wikipedia. RM2KX (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support A Google search for "the fountain across from the arch" will return the names of both the fountain and the park. RM2KX (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, sounds fine, and thanks in advance for the work. Redirect will ensure no one gets lost. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's really no reason for a move here. Simply create a new article at Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park including the Gateway Geyser information as User:RM2KX proposes. Then redirect Gateway Geyser to that new article. That preserves the edit history at Gateway Geyser, which is preferable since the article has never been about the park as a whole. It would also maintain these histories if there is a need for two separate articles in the future. —  AjaxSmack  16:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that would work too. Either way is fine, and it doesn't much matter. But as the question of whether it's better to have the edit history split onto two pages (with the "Gateway Geyser" history on one page, and the "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" history on another) or all on one page (with a big change where the article went from being just about the geyser to being about the park and the geyser)... there's no way to prove which is best, it's a matter of taste I guess.

But if we don't move this page, the editor'll have to copy-and-paste all the material from "Gateway Geyser" into "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park", and if it can be avoided I prefer not to do that that (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia) although it's not a big deal. It's really about 50-50 whether to do it your way or the original requester's way, but I guess my 51% is for moving this article, and anyway since the person who is volunteering to do the work would rather do it all in one article I guess (unless your point has changed his mind), I'd give him his head. Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Your sentiments are similar to mine but I am about 60% the other way. There are two other reasons I prefer not to move the article now. One is that, in the spirit of WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'd like to see material on the park before a move (it can be done in userspace). The other is that, if the new article is to be mostly about other aspects of the park beyond the fountain, it is a new topic and should be a new page. (I would encourage User:RM2KX to take credit for work done on a new topic if so.) However, if the new article is mostly about the fountain, then why move it (per WP:WEIGHT)? —  AjaxSmack  18:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Good points, both. I currently have the work in a userspace and will share after a couple more days of development for further consideration. RM2KX (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: @ AjaxSmack & Herostratus – I've done what I can do for the time being if you want to have a look and tell me what you think. I have two alternate leads, depending on what becomes of the title. The article still favors the fountain, so now I'm thinking I might create the new page, but as a redirect to this one (so a search for the park would more directly get people to the right place, and the title would be waiting if the article were to warrant expansion later). I've switched up the infobox so it reflects the park name, but "Gateway Geyser" appears to be the more common name of the two. Also, there remains three dates that I am not able to find reliable sources for. --> My Sandbox. RM2KX (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Either is fine, you're doing the work and I trust your judgement. If it was me, I guess I would use the Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park angle, and to flesh it out, add a bit more about the non-geyser aspects of the park -- for the overlook, give the name (it is Missouri River Overlook) and height, maybe give the area of the park, and why not a sentence or two more about who Malcolm W. Martin is? (Its all here as I'm sure you know). That's what I would do. But it's six-of-one, and your call. 02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support the original idea of moving the page to Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park (and leaving redirect) and expanding to maintain the edit history in a single place, per the proposer's rationale. The fountain is the main element of the park, and will probably be the focus of most sources, so I understand AjaxSmack's concerns about weight, but I think we'd be better off with one well-done article covering the park and the fountain, rather than just adding a crappy small article about the park that mostly restates the fountain article. Either way, kudos to @RM2KX: for the work already done here. It looks great. Ajpolino (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The two-article solution would be better. Gateway Geyser is more recognizable. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Whoa wait hold up. Up til just now, I believe it was understood that we would end up with a single article. And both I and User:AjaxSmack figured the title would be "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" (and our only dispute was technical about how the page history would end up), and so did OP at first (although now he seems to be mooting that maybe the article should be named "Gateway Geyser" (with "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" just a redirect to that) -- but at any rate a single article).

But the last two respondents have considered that the question is whether two separate articles should exist, one called "Gateway Geyser" and another (a short one I guess, but not a redirect) called "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park", and the last respondent actually favors this. So this is a new angle, and a little confusing, since User:AjaxSmack's "Oppose" is of a different nature than User:Mark Schierbecker's -- User:AjaxSmack is on board with "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" but just wants the technical details of making that happened be handled differently, and User:Ajpolino actually wants "Gateway Geyser" as the final name (which is fine and reasonable, just different). So just to clarify that. Herostratus (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Correct. Also, btw, I am a St. Louis County resident, professional photographer and videographer, so if you need my services (graphics, sources, factchecking), let me know. This topic can support two articles in a similar fashion as Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and the Gateway Arch. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposal is: One article, named Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park, with "Gateway Geyser" redirecting to there. At this time there are not enough resources to support two articles (would both be stubs). Either way, a redirect will be created pointing to the single article. My opinion has not changed, but I am almost indifferent, as either solution is acceptable and allows for future expansion. RM2KX (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Right. So just to summarize right now, I think right now we have:

• You want one article, "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" (although naming it "Gateway Geyser" would be fine too).
• AjaxSmack wants one article "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park". (How he feels about "Gateway Geyser" I don't know.)
• I want one article, "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" (although naming it "Gateway Geyser" would be acceptable, if it came to that, but not preferred)
• Ajpolino wants one article, "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park".
• Mark Schierbecker wants two articles, which is a perfectly acceptable opinion, but so far he's the only one.

And of course the proper redirects will be in place. If this trend continues, then "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" it will be, and will be up to the closer to decide how that should come about -- just moving this page, or you creating an article with that name and having you copy the text of this article into it and then copy in material from your draft and editing it all together. Technical question, doesn't much matter, closer can decide. The closer will be an admin and might know more about what is usually preferred in these cases. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ready to close -- closer, read this

This shouldn't have been relisted. For the proposition, "How shall we deal with this proposed expansion of the article, we have

• 4 supporting a single single article named "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park"
• 0 supporting a single single article named "Gateway Geyser"
• 1 supporting two articles, these being named "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" and "Gateway Geyser"

So what are we waiting for? Let's do it.

Now, there is (relatively trivial) technical dispute over how the unitary article "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" should come to exist, which has to do with how the page history of the article and the artifact redirects will end up. That's a technical issue which the closer, being an admin, can decide. The reasons for each are discussed above. Closer can do one of

1. Just move this article to "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" (leaving "Gateway Geyser" as a redirect of course), or
2. Advise RM2KX to create the article "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" himself, move all of the material in this existing "Gateway Geyser" article (or as much as he wants, and delete the rest) and make ""Gateway Geyser" be just a redirect to "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park"; then edit "Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park" as he (RM2KX) wishes, add and interweaving and editing in his new material as he sees fit.

So unless there's some change, with a 4-0-1 vote it seems open and shut, and is ready to be closed with the closer choosing from one of the two options above. Herostratus (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2017 (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.