Talk:Old Quaker Meeting House (Queens)

National Register of Historic Places High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Quakers Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (assessed as Low-importance).

"Meetinghouse" or "Meeting House"?

I think the article should be moved to Old Quaker Meeting House. This is what it's currently known as (see [1], [2],) and googlefighting them (with space, without space) shows 236 hits for the title with a space, rather than 173.

However, Doncram pointed out ([3]) that the National Historic Landmarks Program (NHLP) has the building listed without a space.

As a Quaker in the UK, I've only seen the phrase 'Meeting house' as two words. I doubt that it's different in the US, and I think the the NHLP must have got it wrong. I reckon that most people will assume to use two words.

What do other people think?

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that the U.S. National Park Service webpages for National Historic Landmarks sometimes have gotten it wrong. One can contact the National Park Service, and request review and correction of a mistake in their pages. But why so sure this is not the correct name? You are commenting from afar, and without any new references showing what common usage is now, or what historic usage was. Your argument is that it looks wrong to you. If it bothers you, perhaps you could do the research and the correspondence and get the National Park Service to change their website.

For starters in this case, the NHL webpage linked from this article uses "Meetinghouse" and that is in agreement with the National Register Information System listing for the site. On the other hand, the NRHP Inventory/Nomination document linked from the article uses "Meeting House". I went with the 2 out of 3 "vote" for "Meetinghouse". doncram (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back. I assume that it'd be consistent with the normal name of Friends meeting houses; the page I linked to is part of the official New York Yearly Meeting site - I think that would be correct, as the people currently involved with the Old Quaker Meeting( )house have direct access to it.

Drum guy (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see an example of Friends' usage refering to this site. The New York Yearly Meeting webpage that I find my way to from your links, refers to a meeting at 17 Rutherford Place, not to a meeting at this site. Can you provide a specific link to the "people currently involved" and/or show how they refer to this site? Otherwise, your assumption on what current and/or historic usage is/was, remains unsupported. It remains more your view of what the name of the site "should" have been to match a need of your own for consistency. doncram (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I am sorry, i did not see the "official site" link that was added to the article sometime. That's good enough for me. doncram (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much! :) Drum guy (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]