Talk:Lane Hotel (Eugene, Oregon)

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ipoellet in topic Article name

Article name

edit

It's original research I know, I've never heard this called the Hotel Gross, only the Lane Hotel and sometimes the Palace Hotel. Per the 1983 Style & Vernacular: "Lane Hotel"...now the Lane Building...Opened as the Gross Hotel, and later, Griggs and Palace, it was known as the Lane Hotel for 50 years." Google searches with the address yield: "Lane Hotel" 60 hits, "Lane Building" 471 hits, "Gross Hotel" 20 hits, "Hotel Gross" -Wikipedia and mirrors 15 hits, "Palace Hotel" a whopping 22,200 hits due to NRHP mirrors and scrapers, I'd imagine. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I'd !vote for either Lane or Palace, but never Gross. Local usage favors Lane. Valfontis (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Last time I checked, the building's signage read "Lane Building". per this 2011 Google Maps view. Valfontis (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
When I moved this article from "Palace Hotel" to "Hotel Gross", it wasn't that I was sold on the "Gross" name, but because I felt "Palace" was inappropriate. As far as I could tell, "Palace Hotel" was just the name of the business that happened to be occupying the building when the NRHP nomination was done - it was neither the historic name nor the currently used name, and it remained in usage solely because of that one dated government document. I lit on using "Gross" because the building's notability derives from its historic values and not its current status. But if others' interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME says that "Lane Building" should be used, then I'm not opposed. But I really don't think "Palace" is appropriate. — Ipoellet (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Seems to me Lane Building might be best (per Common Name), but all alternate titles should serve as redirects and be mentioned in the lead. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the feedback. I'm thinking of moving this to "Lane Hotel" as a nod to its origin and traditional use. Would that work? It kind of splits the difference. A Eugenian would likely recognize it by that name. Valfontis (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC).Reply
Cool. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply