Talk:Anantara Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky Amsterdam

The title changes constantly - why?

Now someone has decided to add "collection" to the title. It doesn't matter whether this was done by a nitpick editor or by someone connected to the hotel itself indulging, it remains a breach of Wikipedia rules. Titles aren't supposed to be constantly and instantly follow official commercial titles but the most common usage. This hotel has been known by its "Grand Hotel Krasnaposlky" moniker and that never changed. And given the official "prefix" constantly changing every couple of years, depending on change of ownership and what-not it never catches on anyway. So there's no need and no valid reason to constantly tinker with the title and institute yet another redirect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a hotel brochure.--Loginnigol 12:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2017

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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

---

NH Collection Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky → Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky – usage as per WP:COMMONNAME, the full official hotel name changes constantly depending on the whims of the owner --Loginnigol 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Loginnigol, per your note above, this seems like it might be controversial, so a discussion to establish consensus on the title is preferred. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No it's not controversial. I put it here after carefully and deliberately checking that there is no argument in the past history of the page. Also the number of lines in the history page of the new name corresponds with a typical non-controversial moves as per WP:REQMOVE. Also you didn't provide any evidence that led you to believe this "seems like" it "might be" controversial. --Loginnigol 15:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It was recently moved to a different name with the longer title, which means presumably someone thinks the long title is justified, and your comment above was that we should avoid having to move it with every change of name in the marketing. Having an RM deals with both of those: it allows other users who might think the longer title is justified to comment on this, and if the page is moved establishes a consensus that the shorter title is preferred, meaning that future moves would need consensus as well to move it away from that title. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm leaving a ping for User:Fernando who moved this page to its current title in July. He is also the author of the page at Draft:NH Collection. The NH Collection looks to be a sort of holding company for hotels. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support histories of Amsterdam just go with the name since 1865, irrespective of franchises. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this is a no-brainer. Should have moved without discussion, speaking of which the time for that has now expired anyway --Loginnigol 16:50, 6 September 2017 (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.

Removed promotional content tag

I removed the promotional content tag after reviewing the article and finding that it no longer contained this content. As a result I also removed the multiple issues tag to leave the other citations tag in place. Breatheforpeace (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)