Talk:Bancroft Hotel

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 14 September 2016[edit]

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: moved to Bancroft Hotel. SST flyer 12:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bancroft Commons → The Grid District – I represent the business and they have since changed their name and would like Bancroft Commons removed from this article. Oliviag220 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed title is an existing aricle. Are you suggesting that this is the primary meaning of the term because if not we will need to alter the request?--67.68.20.73 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look the proposer created the other article which is a carbon copy of this one before making this request. If this request is uncontroversial (no idea if that is the case) it might be quicker to speedy delete the duplicate article and then move this one.--67.68.20.73 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Page simply needs to be renamed. The move is uncontroversial and the business has approved the name change. They would like the article title to be "The Grid District" I created the duplicate page because I did not want the page moved to a blank article.Oliviag220 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you didn't mean to, but the duplicate article actually complicates things. It's actually easier to move to a blank space, and we need to keep the edit history of this article if it's moved. No problem though; I've made "The Grid District" a redirect back to here, which an administrator can easily delete if this article is moved. Station1 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the renaming of this article is problematic. The building is landmarked as, and commonly referred to as "the Bancroft Hotel." IF the name of the article is being changed, it should be back to the buildings actual name. This article is slowly being turned into nothing less than an ad for the re-developer to entice people to rent apartments. I could be convinced of the name change if the integrity of the article, and reference to past names, remains intact and all the weasel words recently added are taken out. I mean "In 2016 the building's common areas underwent a complete renovation to bring it back to its grand days" is by far not an unbiased statement.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I did not add the "weasel words" into the post, I edited what was there originally, so someone else must have added those words in. The reason for the name change is that the building was remodeled and now goes by "Bancroft on the Grid" If you must rename the article "to preserve the integrity" then Bancroft on the Grid will suffice. The Grid District is a collection of these buildings within the area. Also the redirect isn't really what I had in mind, I was hoping the name of the article itself could be changed, not redirected from the page I created. I could delete the duplicate page? thx. 50.176.84.253 (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Bancroft Hotel. It's notable because it's listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and that's what they call it. We don't move articles to benefit anyone's marketing strategy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove the redirect on the Grid District's page that directs people back to Bancroft Commons? I am going to make the page separate and add a "formerly Bancroft Commons" style of writing there with new content. Similarly to the "TD Garden" Page. ThxOliviag220 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliviag, the question is not the tense of the article, but rather what the "Common Name" of the building is. Per WP:UCRN, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." We all agree that "Bancroft Commons" is the incorrect title per the Article Titles policy, we just disagree on what the title should be, so a discussion has begun here. I still stand behind Move to Bancroft Hotel.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.masslive.com/news/worcester/index.ssf/2016/09/check_out_what_a_15_million_lo.html - a recent news article citing the building as "The Bancroft Building, thus contradicting your point of Hotel. Also the building is not a hotel currently (even though it was), its an apartment complex. Also - when google imaging the address - "The Grid District" comes up. Bancroft on the Grid is the proposed name from me. Oliviag220 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article you reference never uses the term "Bancroft on the Grid." They explicitly reference the building as "The Bancroft Building" and as being separate from "The Grid developments". If consensus happens around "Bancroft Building" instead of "Bancroft Hotel," I would be willing to go with that, but it is fairly obvious that the "Common Name" of the building does not include the term "On the Grid."--Found5dollar (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Bancroft Hotel. It was built as a hotel and functioned as one for most of its existence. It was added to the Register of Historic Places because of its role as Worcester's most prominent hotel.Terageorge (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will just add a separate page, because I do not agree with the hotel idea. also, in google maps, the building has a plaque stating "Bancroft on the Commons" so even that is more valid than the hotel proposition. Oliviag220 (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add something to Google Maps! Always remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory for business interests to get their product noticed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This move isn't to get a product noticed. The Building was the Bancroft Hotel, now is Bancroft on the Commons, and also referred to as "Bancroft on the Grid." This is a move to acknowledge the company's historical changes so that residents of the building as well as other users are aware of the changes that the company is instituting. The Grid District is a collection of Apartment Buildings in This Area. The Grid District can be a separate page, but the Bancroft needs to stand alone, with some direction to the grid district. Also that is fine that functioned as a hotel for most of its time, but it has since been improved upon and taken a new name. In regards to the "Bancroft on the Commons" the plaque is ON the building and you can see it from "google street view" (people cant add this) I am simply just trying to change the company name to fit the history of the building as well as unifying the company's location. Please let me know if there is another way of making this happen. Thank you. Oliviag220 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliviag220: If you want to write an article at "The Grid District" title, you should be able to do it yourself. Click here, The Grid District, and then click on the edit tab. Erase what's there and start your article. Just include some reliable sources (like this one) that show that the district is notable. Contact me on my talk page if you want help. Station1 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't realise that what you're saying is pure marketing: " This is a move to acknowledge the company's historical changes so that residents of the building as well as other users are aware of the changes that the company is instituting." If it wasn't an historic building it wouldn't have an article. It's an historic building as the Bancroft Hotel, not as what your employers have chosen to rename it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Infobox [closed vs. ceased hotel operations vs. ?][edit]

Not sure about how to list 1964… is "closed" good or would something like "Ceased Hotel Operations" be clearer? Not sure about use of building between 1964 and late 2000's although I do remember coffee shop in ground level storefront sometime late '90s or '00s.

Also removed map from infobox as it was making box longer than page itself--looks better now IMHO--is this kosher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASiplas (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]