Talk:Frank H. Ogawa Plaza

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was moved by Steven Walling. --regentspark (comment) 23:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Grant Plaza → Frank H. Ogawa Plaza – The actual name is Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. The Occupy Oakland crowd renamed it for a few days and in the minds of a few people but it's still the Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. The Oscar Grant "renaming" should be discussed in the article (obviously) but the article belongs at Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. Pichpich (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I actually just prodded this but will make the move instead. I would prefer it if someone else found the source and figured out how to incorporate any info into the primary article if it is deemed worthy of inclusion. But if no one else tries I might try it.Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to use the most common name, whichever that is. OGP is the name I've heard most in recent material in natl and intl coverage, but we should use whichever name is more notable for the title. I'd never heard of Ogawa Plaza, but Oscar Grant Plaza's being widely reported. (This may be a very temporary effect or the name may stick now that it's been extensively used in the wider world.)

The name's not as important-- Wikipedia just needs to have some article on this historic public space in a major city. Under various names, it's been the heart of historic downtown a century. The space itself is definitely article-worthy, no matter what the citizens of oakland are calling it these days. Tangledorange (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted the "cut and paste move"(it wasn't one) done by someone else and mentioned to say something here. They haven't said anything and the creator doesn't object. I will redirect it (and we still need a source. Copying that article here is not the right way to do it and still doesn't provide verification. D'oh... nevermind. I thought it was already an article. I agree with the move regardless since the official name and the one used primarily throughout its history (not just in recent news) is the primary. BTW: Here is how Google Maps had to deal with the issue(KQED News) Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fiddlesticks. I am bound to not move the article before the 7 days elapses by the WP:RMCI. I do request that it is moved now based on WP:NOTADVOCATE (of the policy WP:NOT). It does not look like the creator's intent was activism from his agreement that the article can be moved but the current article title does give the impression of advocacy. This is compounded by the issue being raised in the source provided above. There appears to be consensus now so it would be of the most benefit to the project and reader to make the move now. Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine with me. We can probably still keep the debate open but move the article now, if temporarily. I'll try to get an admin to look at this request. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done It is completely obvious that the name of a geographical place article should be its official name. We call it Oakland, California, not Oaktown. Steven Walling • talk 22:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. I was the original creator, used the informal title since it's what I heard first and it had more google results than the official name. When it became clear that the name was a source of controversy and brings with it the implication of WP advocating a side in a protest, its use was clearly inappropriate. My apologies for creating under the sub-optimal title in the first place, thx for doing the admin magic to fix it for me. --Tangledorange (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested image(s) / sources

Need an image of "Vitality" sculpture-- lots of good ones online, but need a creative commons one.
Needs a link to the full text of the 1896 Jack London article (or better, an image of the original printing)

--Tangledorange (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Occupy Oakland Nov 12 2011 PM 29.jpg and related show the bust and plaques, if someone wants to use images that also show the encampment.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That image is perfect for the occupy Oakland article. This article is not about the occupy movement.Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History:Name

The section detailing the names of the plaza receives too much prominence. It would be better neatly worked into the history section. Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]