Talk:Block 216

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Food hall update[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 13:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delay[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Ritz-Carlton, Portland into Block 216[edit]

Wholly redundant to the building's article. No other U.S. hotel with an article has the hotel portion separate from the building. Users are expecting to have all this information bundled into one article anyway and we should facilitate that. SounderBruce 00:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge per WP:NOTMERGE, which says a merge should be avoided if "the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles", or "the topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles". I would prefer to have one article for the building and another for the hotel, which occupies part of the structure. The former would cover the history of the site, the building's design and construction, the food hall, and other tenants (including minimal mention of the hotel). The hotel article would cover its design, flagship restaurant, lobby lounge, and reception. I'm already working to expand both entries, and there's about to be a lot more coverage with the grand opening. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of a source that's about the building and tenants, mentioning Ritz in passing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Are you willing to remove the merge tag? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - thanks for the revert of hard work to execute the merge. By my count there is 2-1 for merge (including mention below of merge vote). However, you can do whatever you want. The Ritz doesn't rate its own page and is only relevant because it is in block 216.
Instead of revert, discuss next time. TRL (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge may have made more sense 6 months ago, when the articles were shorter, but that's no longer the case and sources clearly differentiate the two topics. A merge is not appropriate, and I am seeking tag removal by the editor who added. Thanks ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE The Ritz-Carlton does not need a page standalone. There is not enough notability about the individual building, and it is really only relevant as an anchor tenant in the Block 216 Building. Regardless of how much additional information is added about the amenities of the Ritz (which start to look like spam or advertisements for the business. Further, the only opposition to the merge is the original article creator.
+MERGE VOTE from @Amirguerouate below from 29 Dec 23.
Thanks. TRL (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the comment below, which was added by someone who has made 7 edits to Wikipedia, but more recent sources clearly talk about the building and the hotel separately. Both articles could be expanded further now, and there will be even more to add as other tenants move into the building. The hotel is just one tenant within the building, the two topics are not the same. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I did not realize the weight or vote counts based on the number of edits? I am sure that is not how the policy works... TRL (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but if we're going based on arguments, the editor said "they both referring to the same building" and "regarding the same thing", which is not true. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have closed the discussion when I completed the merge yesterday, my mistake. Wikipedia:Merging#Step_4:_Close_the_merge_discussion_and_determine_consensus TRL (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to work on expanding both articles with sources clearly specific to each topic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Block 216 Rep to Commissioner Dan Ryan: Please No Food Carts Near the Development That Replaced A Bunch of Food Carts"[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

Block 216 & The Ritz Carlton Portland wikipedia pages should be merged as they are they both referring to the same building and it is redundant to have two different pages regarding the same thing Amirguerouate (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, one article is about the building and the other is about a business. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 23:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Trlovejoy: Which text do you consider promotional or problematic? Please be specific, since you've added a tag. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the food hall section that just lists the vendors. The section should provide more context or NPOV information about the notability of the information. TRL (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The food hall has a received significant coverage and involves multiple independently notable businesses. I completely agree that the section could be expanded (another reason to avoid an article merge), but I don't think any of the current text is promotional. Reads very matter-of-fact to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - we agree that it needs expanded... I think with expansion the advert tag removal would likely make sense. The tag helps editors who are looking for opportunities to see this article. I found the article via the merge backlog - and it wasn't until you stridently reverted all the merge work that I took an interest further. TRL (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate when editors take time to perform maintenance tasks like merging, but in this case, I very strongly disagree that a merge makes sense. Personally, I think Template:Expand section would be more appropriate than the advertisement tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not appreciate the maintenance tasks - specifically with your actions. These actions erase work that was put in to improve the overall wikipedia. Your blatant disregard for other editors, with your opinion being prime is a problem. Over five months, you are the only editor that has the opposition to the merge and perspective represented. It was not appropriate to take the actions you have.
If you want to change the tags - to my earlier point, do whatever you want... you will undoubtedly do that anyway. TRL (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way because that's not how I would characterize my approach to Wikipedia. However, based on this discussion, I have replaced the advertisement tag with an expansion tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Block_216&oldid=1216712457"