Talk:Great Eastern Hotel, London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dab[edit]

With regards to Great Eastern Hotel (Kolkata), is this the primary article, or should it be disambiguated? Schwede66 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No response, so I've disambiguated it. I'll now tidy up the incoming links. Schwede66 09:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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:

Moved. There is a sound and clear consensus to move this article back to its previous title. — ΛΧΣ21 03:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


Andaz Liverpool Street London HotelGreat Eastern Hotel, London – Per guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME, the name "Great Eastern Hotel" is cited by the majority of the sources referenced in this article, and the article's title should reflect that. The current move to this article was undertaken by Jamesluckard (talk · contribs) with the sole edit summary "hotel has been renamed" with no prior discussion or contributions to the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support as proposer. We should use the name as existed from 1884 - 2006 as referenced in the sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: the Andaz stuff is pure WP:Recentism. Next year, or next month or tomorrow, there will be another sale and another attempt at re-branding. Really we should not be wasting our time moving the article around as if it were on a billiard table. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per Ian Spackman. Eric Corbett 18:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I moved the page because the title should reflect the current name of the hotel. I'm not sure why a longer edit summary was necessary. The reasons to keep the page here are 1) The hotel has had this name for six years now. 2) The hotel is owned outright by Hyatt, which renamed it. There is little to no chance of it being renamed again soon. It is certainly not going to be frequently renamed, as some people suggest. Hotels are frequently renamed if they are only managed by a chain, and the owners decide to change management. Hyatt owns this hotel directly, so that will not be happening. 3) The fact that the former name was used for 100+ years does not mean that is where the current page should be. That is the entire reason for redirect pages. When a person searches "Bombay" they get "Mumbai", even though the name Bombay was used for hundreds of years. The same with "Breslau" giving you "Wrocław" or "EuroDisney" giving you "Disneyland Paris". Wikimapia pages need to reflect the current names of places and things, or else there will be confusion. People searching for them under former names, no matter how long they were used, will always find the current pages through the redirect pages.User:Jamesluckard (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per proposal. Richerman (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. The building's name that has stood for more than 100 years is appropriate. Hotels change hands with great regularity and are saddled with all sorts of ephemeral branding appellations. The Breslau/Wroclaw-Bombay/Mumbai comparison is absurd. Acroterion (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support We go with the majority of sources. It would be ridiculous to keep renaming buildings such as this as their owners change (or indeed, as their owners change names, or are taken over, etc.). Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I appreciate Ritchie's starting this discussion, and the comments so far. I object strongly to this kind of naming principle, which I find offensive for reasons phrased better above. And Jamesluckard, maybe now you see why you should consider discussing such a renaming operation: not everyone agrees. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quite honestly I had no idea that the movement of an obscure hotel in London due to the one name change it has ever had would cause such controversy. I can't imagine how someone would find this offensive, as it's simply a reflection of facts. For every source using the old name, more sources using the new one could be found. Again, this building is owned by the group that renamed it, it is not being frequently and confusingly renamed. Nevertheless, if such a huge number of people feel the need to place the page under its former name, I'm obviously not capable of standing in the way. All I ask is that you all allow the wording of the page to clearly reflect that this is not the current name of the hotel. Please also note two more facts. 1) I moved the page because it shared the name of a hotel in Kolkata, India, which still operates under that name. There seemed no need to disambiguate the two if one had been renamed. 2) I notice that the poster above did not label my comparison of this hotel to "EuroDisney"/"Disneyland Paris" "absurd", as it's on point - a business renamed by its owner. We're all just trying to make the pages here as useful to people as possible, we need to remain pleasant, or at least civil.User:Jamesluckard (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You've already opposed once, so I've struck your bolded vote here. Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I'm unfamiliar with this system, as I've honestly never had anything challenged like this before. Again, if the majority feels a move back is warranted, I'll go with their decision. I was not trying to slant the vote. User:Jamesluckard (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I would like to ask, in all seriousness, how long the new name would need to remain before people think a move is required? Must the hotel operate under the new name for longer than the old one? Again, I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to get opinions from people. Thanks! User:Jamesluckard (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The article as we had it (since some of the people here were helpful in writing the article) was quite clear about the name and the present owners. The hotel was hardly obscure, as you can surmise from the number of reliable sources I dug up under the proper name. And if I hadn't found so many of them, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but it's clear that "Great Eastern Hotel" has plenty validity to it. What I think you should realize is that there is more to a "thing" (in this case a hotel) than its current ownership, and that such a history is worth respecting. In fact, that's the point that Austerlitz is trying to make, a novel I've been plugging shamelessly in this and other contexts.

    As for "how long"--I suppose it depends on coverage in reliable sources, for instance. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I certainly didn't mean to show a lack of respect for the hotel's history, and apologize if it seemed that way. I was simply trying to make the page easier for people to find, as many might not know the hotel by its historical name, since it has now not been used for a few years. I love working on Wikipedia and updating pages, and I do so out of a passion for history and knowledge, as I'm sure we all do. I only meant this hotel was obscure in comparison to, say, The Ritz or The Savoy in London, in that the majority of people have never heard of it. the great thing about the internet is the number of sources we can all find on topics like this hotel, and I'm glad people have taken the time to make this page as detailed as it is. I hope it continues to grow more detailed. As I said, I will certainly not stand in the way when the pages gets moved back, as the majority has clearly chosen. User:Jamesluckard (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's anything wrong with your conduct, James - you've followed the spirit of WP:BRD pretty much exactly as it was intended. Just to pick up on your point that you can't understand why it would cause offense - you'll be amazed what people can take offence at! To pick up on a tangent to what Drmies says, have a look at Talk:Gdansk/Vote to see how much debate can arise out of respect or recognition towards history. Or, on a lighter note, just take a stroll through Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, particularly the section on "Names". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per procedure WP:BRD and on merits per WP:RECENT, and close as WP:SNOW. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Just a branding. The building is still what the building always was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
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.