Talk:Silversmith Hotel

Edit request
Current title name on Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silversmith_Hotel is showing as Silversmith Hotel.

However, the correct name should be: Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown. Please visit official website: https://www.silversmithchicagohotel.com/ of the hotel for more information.

Actually title of wikipedia is appearing in the google knowledge graph while you search with the property name and it is impacting correct property name: Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown. So it would be great if it will be changed with: Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown. Because google is considering wikipedia as trusted source so sometimes it is showing data from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smit.milestone (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, ; If you want change the title of the article follow the procedure at Requested Move. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: not moved. See definite agreement to not move this page as proposed. And as for the suggested title, Silversmith Building, I don't quite see a consensus among opposers. So there is no prejudice toward editors continuing to garner consensus for that name in a separate and new RM. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 12:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Silversmith Hotel → Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown – the correct name should be: Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown. Please visit official website: https://www.silversmithchicagohotel.com/ of the hotel for more information. Title of wikipedia is appearing in the google knowledge graph while you search with the property name and it is impacting correct property name: Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown. Because google is considering wikipedia as trusted source so sometimes it is showing data from wikipedia. Smit.milestone (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Cúchullain t/ c 18:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Wikipedia titles are usually truncated for brevity. If there is no other 'Silversmith Hotel' then this one has enough information so the reader will get to the page. I see the full name doesn't have a redirect so I'll put one up, which will allow readers looking for the full name to come to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wonder if this shouldn't be moved to Silversmith Building since its notability stems primarily from its architecture and historic use as a building for jewelers and silversmiths, and only secondarily from its conversion to a hotel 20 years ago. Station1 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is the likely search term.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose or move to Silversmith Building. Oh dear, the marketing mob are out again, thinking Wikipedia should change article titles to accommodate their desire to put their companies to the top of Google searches. Common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be great if page name is renamed with "Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown" as per User: Necrothesp Smit.milestone (talk)
 * That's not what User:Necrothesp said, though. Dekimasu よ! 01:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. Please don't misrepresent others' comments. You need to realise that hotels are generally notable for historical reasons and our articles are therefore titled with the historic (and best-known) name of the building, not some modern chain or marketing name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support move to Silversmith Building, oppose as proposed. The notability of the article derives from the building as noted by User:Station1. Note also that I have reverted a similar undiscussed request at Shattuck Hotel. Dekimasu よ! 01:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silversmith_Hotel as this page is for hotel, not historical building. Please read information of the page. It should be proposed name Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown. Support move to Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown as proposed originally. Also for Shattuck Hotel Request was approved and published so please revert back to original name: Hotel Shattuck Plaza. Smit.milestone (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move to Silversmith Building, and change the article somewhat to reflect the title Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Administrator's comment: I'm reopening and relisting this discussion per request. While consensus is strongly against the proposed title "Silversmith Hotel Chicago Downtown", we need to determine consensus between the other two suggested options, "Silversmith Hotel" and "Silversmith Building". It would be good to see evidence as to which is the WP:COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Cúchullain for reopening the discussion. My understanding of the above discussion is that the notability of the article's subject rests on its architectural significance. The building is on the National Register of Historic Places as Silversmith Building. To respond directly to Cúchullain's concerns, a Google Books search for "Silversmith Building" yields many hits related to architecture and history; "Silversmith Hotel" yields fewer overall hits on Google Books, and correct hits lean towards travel guides. "Silversmith Hotel" yields more hits on normal Google, but weighted heavily towards booking hotel rooms, so that has little to do with how the building/hotel is treated in reliable sources. Dekimasu よ! 18:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.