Talk:Imperial Hotel (Portland, Oregon)

The Other Imperial Hotel
What I think of as the Imperial Hotel in Portland used to be a fairly inexpensive accommodation that has been renovated and is now called the Hotel Lucia. I'm not sure of its historic status or if it also had a former name. Does this page need to be moved to the current name, Vintage Plaza, so Imperial Hotel can be made into a disambiguation page? The Lucia/Imperial was so-named for as long as I can remember. Did Vintage Plaza have any intervening alternate names? Katr67 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, the Hotel Lucia was the Imperial Hotel until 2002. The Hotel Vintage Plaza has had its name for a long time before that (I'm still looking for a date; the hotel staff didn't know). We had a nice stay at the Imperial (Lucia) in 1998, and meant to stay there again last month, June 2009, but stayed at the Vintage (Imperial) by mistake. I thought we had the right hotel, mainly from reading this article, but I didn't read this talk page in time! (It was also a very nice stay at Vintage.)
 * I think both were named the Imperial Hotel, but they are two buildings. The internet has some references to the historical society, which probably has this information, but I had spent enough time on our vacation trying to figure it out. This sketch shows the two together: http://pdxhistory.com/html/portland_hotels.html. This link http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv76279 mentions Phil Metschan purchasing the Imperial in 1899, and building a new Imperial on the corner of SW Broadway and Stark in 1910 (which would be the Imperial/Lucia).
 * The historical places NRHP list on wikipedia lists the "Imperial Hotel" (Vintage Plaza) and "New Imperial Hotel" (Lucia). I wonder if "new" means 1910.
 * So, this research aside, I'm going to leave this page named as-is, and create a new page for New Imperial Hotel, to match the listing names in the NRHP. I'll put the "see also" links at the top of each page; maybe that's sufficient for disambiguation. If not, perhaps this page name of Imperial Hotel could be an article about the common history of the two. goodeye (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. I created a New Imperial Hotel (Portland, Oregon) page for Hotel Lucia, to be consistent with this one, added hatnotes to both pages, and set up various redirects, including Hotel Lucia and Hotel Vintage Plaza. goodeye (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thank you! Katr67 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename instead of copy/paste

 * It looks like the contents of Imperial_Hotel_(Portland,_Oregon) was copied into this page, removing the redirect. Instead, if it's simply to update the name of the other page, then I think that page should have been renamed instead. This approach lost the edit history and discussions of the two Imperial hotels. Also, there are marketing sections that don't read like an encyclopedia. goodeye (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Hotel Vintage Plaza. The marker for it is in the middle of the road in front of a building next door. It should be at 45°31'14.70"N 122°40'42.95"W. —76.105.145.143 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Deor (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge
It is proposed that Kimpton Hotel Vintage Portland (created about one week ago) be merged into this article, as both are about the exact same building – one using the historic name, under which it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Portland Historic Landmarks list, and the other its current (since 2015) name, and the latter mostly just duplicates this article. It appears to have created by an editor (probably connected with the hotel) who was unhappy that their efforts to change the title of the article to Kimpton Hotel Vintage Portland were reverted; the latter name was already prominently mentioned in the Imperial Hotel article, in the very first sentence (until I moved it to the third sentence, only after the duplicative article was created) and in the infobox photo caption, but that was apparently not satisfactory to this editor or editors who repeatedly tried to change the infobox heading and hatnote to the Kimpton name, and eventually created the separate Kimpton article. I had explained (via edit summaries) that Imperial Hotel will always be the building's historic name, and that the titles of WP articles on NRHP-listed buildings often use their historic (as opposed to current) names (and Infobox NRHP is always supposed to use the NRHP listing name, per WP:NRHPMOS). Also, this article's content is almost entirely – all but two sentences – about the building's use before it became the Kimpton Hotel Vintage Portland. Almost all of the content in the original version of the Kimpton Hotel Vintage Portland article was quickly deleted, to avoid speedy deletion after another editor tagged it for such as being essentially advertising for the current hotel. Content retained or added subsequently makes the current version almost entirely duplicative of the content in the Imperial Hotel article.

This discussion is primarily about merging two duplicative articles, but if a merge is made, it would be reasonable to open a discussion about whether to rename the resulting, merged article under the newer name. I am not aware of a clear standard for how to treat the titles of WP articles about NRHP-listed hotel buildings that are still in business as hotels but under another name. In Portland, most NRHP-listed hotel buildings are either no longer in operation as hotels (and virtually all of these use the NRHP-listed former hotel name for their Wikipedia article titles) or retain their original names (the Benson, the Heathman). However, the New Imperial Hotel article has not been renamed Hotel Lucia. – SJ Morg (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per SJ Morg. MB298 (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. SJ Morg (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kudos to you for being polite and opening this as a discussion, but it is obviously correct to merge the new, duplicative article back into this one, and I have just implemented that. I agree that a rename of the article can be discussed.  As discussed, the NRHP infobox needs to give the NRHP name (so that readers looking for the NRHP can see that this is the article about it).  If the new editor(s) who created the new article want to be involved in renaming, the proper way is for them to participate in a "Requested Move".  To facilitate that, I or they or anyone could follow instructions at wp:RM to do that.  If the new editors request it of me here or at my Talk page I will do that.  However, I would like to see some acknowledgement by them that a) they will abide by there being just one article on this one building, and b) as they have some wp:COI, they must defer to non-COI editors.  The clearest way for them to defer is to contribute suggested changes at the talk page but not edit in the article themselves. -- do  ncr  am  14:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SJ Morg (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)