Talk:Hull Shore Drive and Nantasket Avenue

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move to "Hull Shore Drive and Nantasket Avenue"

Seems to me this ought to be moved. On all but one (not yet created) of the other Boston area parkways whose NRIS name includes "Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston MPS" we have used the shorter name as the article title with a redirect from the NRIS name, see:

While I don't value consistency over other considerations, I do think we should be consistent if other considerations don't apply. In this case certainly no lay person is going to look for a name that includes "Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston MPS".

Note that NRIS is inconsistent in its names, some use a comma, some use a single hyphen, some use a double hyphen. I've created redirects for the exact official name where needed. Maybe I'll create some maps. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When possible, all articles about NRHP listings should have information about aspects of the listing besides its NRHP data. If an article is about a courthouse, we want to discuss its history and perhaps the court system that uses that building. Similarly, if an article is about a drive and an avenue, we should discuss the drive and the avenue as well as their status as a historic district. Likewise, if there's a simpler and more common name than the NRIS uses, we should go with that name: therefore, our article on the first concrete-paved street in the country is located at Court Avenue, not at "First Concrete Street in U.S." I seriously doubt that locals include "Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston MPS" when they refer to these streets, and the article titles would obviously be a lot simpler if we cut that clause from the name. I wholeheartedly support Jim's proposal. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall seeing other unusually named Boston area parkway NRHPs, wasn't aware of all this consideration and renaming having gone on. I think i intervened in connection to reviewing a lot of other moves/redirects without sources, some of which I know are inappropriate, and i couldn't tell the difference here. Given consideration by a few other editors, I don't object to the move which i had reverted being re-implemented. It has always been okay/good to use a different common name for article on a place like a lighthouse which has a different NRHP name, although I prefer for the NRIS name to appear in NRHP infobox and as a bolded alternative in article, with a redirect in place.

Here, though the situation is also different than any other moves/redirects, as these renamings can be viewed effectively as an assertion that the NRIS name is wrong for each of these. It may actually be exactly that, an unusual sequence of mis-entries by one NRIS data entry staffperson (unlike for any other series of MPS items entered that i have ever seen), while the individual NRHP nom forms show titles that do not include the MPS name. Or, it's an unusual batch of items prepared by one nominator who included the MPS name in each title, and the NRIS data entry person did not over-ride it. I'll open an item at wp:NRIS info issues#Massachusetts: property names towards requesting that all of these be reviewed and renamed in NRIS. That way we'll be treating these as a series of errors, and bringing NRIS in line with actual names of the NRHP places. Note, the weirdly long names will persist in existence at NRHP.COM and other NRIS mirror sites, for a long time. doncram (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a another smiliar case in Minnesota. The MPS name is "Minnesota State Park CCC/WPA/Rustic Style MPS" and the NRIS name of each property is "<Name of park> (CCC)/WPA/Rustic Style Historic Resources" or the variant with "Historic District" at the end of the name. --Polaron | Talk 14:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for noting that similar situation, and I'll open a note about that at wp:NRIS info issues#Minnesota: property names. Searching using the "who has" tool on "MPS", though, it is only these Boston area parkways that show up. Searching on "thematic" and on "multiple property" yields no hits. Searching on "resource" yields just those MN ones. So the problem seems not more widespread than that. doncram (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]