This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
So, I recently made an article on the life-saving station in the other Ocean City. Hello from the Garden State! Now, the titles should, in theory, be similar. In Maryland's case, the city is bigger in the summertime and was founded sooner, but New Jersey's is larger year-round. So, I'm not sure the Maryland article should have the dominant article, so perhaps it should be moved to Ocean City Life-Saving Station (Maryland). Although Maryland's functions as a museum, the one in Ocean City will soon be converted to a museum, so a disambiguation is probably best. I propose changing this article's title to Ocean City Life-Saving Museum (Maryland), and change Ocean City's title to Ocean City Life-Saving Museum (New Jersey), once that life-saving station opens as a museum. I just wanted to seek some other editor input before I made a change (and tonight, I did move the article, but realized I shouldn't have). So... anyone out there? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed like a good idea, did it! For the future, be bold! Zoom (talk page) 14:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the recent move of it away from the base-name article since it broke all of the incoming links. The usual approach when introducing a second topic for an existing title is to create the new article with the qualified name and then adding a hatnote at the base-name article (which is how I've left it). A bold approach could be to move the base-name article to a qualified name as well (which was done), fix all the incoming links (which was not), and convert the base-name redirect to the new name to a base-name disambiguation (which was not). I have no opinion on whether there is now no longer a primary topic, if that path is pursued, either directly through those bold steps or through a move request for the base-name article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
