This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This citation was on the WikiProject clean-up list CS1: Ignored Parameter (|section=1980). I found the link dead and located archive copy of it to restore with. In review of the copy I find no reference to the statement of Kahlúa usage, or even the subjects of the article directly. I located an alternate source of reference in the same publication and updated the citation. Placing this info here if there may be a future use of it. Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
I propose splitting this article into Huber's and Railway Exchange Building. I understand the NRHP listing is "Railway Exchange Building and Huber's Restaurant", and this should be mentioned in both articles, but otherwise this is an awkward hybrid entry covering both a building and a restaurant. There's enough coverage to support separate entries, IMO. Thoughts? ---Another Believer(Talk)15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
After reading the nomination form, I agree with the split. The current article doesn't really address the historical building at all (history, description, alterations, current uses), and to add all of that here with the restaurant information would be...your word "awkward" describes it best, I think. I would rename this one Huber's Restaurant and start a new one for Railway Exchange Building. Schazjmd(talk)16:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
This article is not too large and does not require a WP:SPLIT for that reason. There is practically nothing in it about the building except the NRHP infobox (which in insufficient for an article). So this article should not be split. (There are many other articles like this, some on schools for example, that really have nothing about the NRHP building except an infobox.)
However, there is no reason not to write a new article on the building (more than a stub) and make adjustments here (like removing the infobox). MB17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Just at a glance, it's too short to need splitting. The title of the article doesn't really match the lead or the focus of the article, though. I would support a move to Huber's, leaving behind a redirect, with a section on the NRHP listing contained within that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think a lower bar than an article split is a distinct section within the article. I'd say no split for now, but if there's a vision for a separate article, the best way to express it is by first creating a section on the Railway Exchange Building. If that section tells a story that meets WP:GNG, i.e. has a few good sources and asserts significance, then a split would make sense. Until then, I think this is better addressed with a redirect. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Schazjmd, MB, Jonesey95, and Peteforsyth: Thanks, all, for your feedback. I've gone ahead and moved the page to Huber's and created the new stub Railway Exchange Building (Portland, Oregon), which might actually be moved to Oregon Pioneer Building if we prefer to use the current name. Above there was one support to split and others seemingly open to a split if there's enough content/coverage. I've not adequately expanded Railway Exchange Building yet, but based on my initial research I believe there's enough coverage to construct details Description and History sections. Let's not forget, the building is NRHP-listed and therefore notable (and happens to house an also notable restaurant). This remains a work in progress, but I'd appreciate any help fixing connections between Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, etc, and generally marking both articles more consistent with restaurant and NRHP building entries, respectively. Thanks again! --Another Believer(Talk)18:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree with separating the articles. This seems like a very good restaurant article. However, expanding it to include the NRHP designated building that houses the restaurant is a mistake. I have written quite a few articles on NRHP structures (and a couple restaurant articles as well). Addressing these two different subjects (a notable restaurant and a notable building) together in one article makes it very difficult to add new content to the article. For example, how would I incorporate material about NRHP structure (e.g. architectural style, building’s footprint, construction materials, interior of upper floors, etc … and what does that have to do with a restaurant?). Likewise, to expand restaurant content, would require working around unrelated info about a multi-story building. Also, what happens if restaurant closes and building remains with new tenant … or if another notable tenant moves into another corner of the building? Put simple, leaving these two distinct subjects in one article would make it extremely difficult to improve content for either subject area …so bottomline, I agree these two subjects should be separated.--Orygun (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Another Believer, I don't think you followed the consensus here. Most editors said a split would be OK if the new article was developed beyond a stub. You said here you haven't expanded it yet, but before doing so you moved on and split another article creating another stub. Are you going to come back and actually expand Railway Exchange Building (Portland, Oregon) beyond four sentences in the body? MB22:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
