Talk:Bit House Saloon/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bit House Saloon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Status
@RHaworth: Can you please restore this page and move to Draft:Bit House Saloon? This page should not have been deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Graywalls: This page has been restored. Please do not mark for deletion again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: The page has not been restored; a draft has been created. Deb (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Sure, I assume Graywalls understands. I also wanted to demonstrate that draftifying is an option over just marking things for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just like taking the trouble to improve the article is an option preferable to wasting people's time haranguing them about why you think they were "wrong" and you were "right". Deb (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but I can't work on 8 articles at the same time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then stop creating poor quality articles in the first place and work on fewer and higher quality ones. Graywalls (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but I can't work on 8 articles at the same time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just like taking the trouble to improve the article is an option preferable to wasting people's time haranguing them about why you think they were "wrong" and you were "right". Deb (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, Sure, I assume Graywalls understands. I also wanted to demonstrate that draftifying is an option over just marking things for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: The page has not been restored; a draft has been created. Deb (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Another editor has moved the draft into the main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Advert
In anticipation of objection/grievance on the ground of "no entry in talk", I'm placing a post here. The justification is that the tone, source selection and presentation represent some of the key elements addressed in Wikipedia:PR_Professionals_&_Editing. Ok thanks happy editing. xoxo Graywalls (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unnecessary tag, IMO. The claims I've added are accurate and neutral, per sourcing. If you can find "negative" coverage and feel inclined to add to the article, by all means. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The article is pieced together with reviews. The point here is that the sources are selected and put together that it sends a promotional tone to the article, but you're disagreeing with the advert tag. Graywalls (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another editor has removed the tag. Please do not add back without consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- If the sources are "selected", no doubt Graywalls can find contrasting sources to add, to ensure that the article reflects the spectrum of views reported in sources. Or, barring doing some actual work on the article, add a more appropriate tag (i.e. not "advert", which does not apply here) to the Reception section to request that other editors find and summarize the coverage provided by such sources. I do not see a promotional tone, only a reporting of what sources have said about the subject of the article. That said, it would be helpful for this article to have additional sections to balance out a rather significant Reception section, but there are no rules against start-class articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Agree 100%, thanks for contributing to this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps the reason there's not much but stitched up reviews could be the subject is lacking in notability. This article hasn't gone through an actual review for deletion yet. Graywalls (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Agree 100%, thanks for contributing to this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- If the sources are "selected", no doubt Graywalls can find contrasting sources to add, to ensure that the article reflects the spectrum of views reported in sources. Or, barring doing some actual work on the article, add a more appropriate tag (i.e. not "advert", which does not apply here) to the Reception section to request that other editors find and summarize the coverage provided by such sources. I do not see a promotional tone, only a reporting of what sources have said about the subject of the article. That said, it would be helpful for this article to have additional sections to balance out a rather significant Reception section, but there are no rules against start-class articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another editor has removed the tag. Please do not add back without consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The article is pieced together with reviews. The point here is that the sources are selected and put together that it sends a promotional tone to the article, but you're disagreeing with the advert tag. Graywalls (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
3O Response: I don't think it reads like an advertisement, therefore the tag is not appropriate. I do think the Reception section is longer than is justified considering the paucity of information in the rest of the article. I'd like to see more information on the history, since the building is apparently on the register of historic places. Having that information included would balance out the reception section, which is mostly positive, with more neutral content. That said, it's not the presence of positive content that makes an advert, and this article doesn't read like an advert. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank for providing input. Graywalls (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- ONUnicorn, Do you believe this tag is necessary? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another Believer Probably not, although it's more justified than the advert tag. I don't think the problem is that there is undue weight on the positive reviews the bar has received, assuming of course, that it "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (i.e. if there are reviews in RSs that treat the bar negatively, they should be included also, but if there aren't, then obviously we can't include what doesn't exist). I think the problem is more one of proportion, what proportion of the article is given over to discussing reviews as opposed to other aspects of the topic. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- ONUnicorn, Sure, I understand. Part of the problem may be the current formatting. Really, the history section is one paragraph and the reception section is two, but the reception looks a lot bigger because of the image interference and extended quote. Thanks for weighing in here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another Believer Probably not, although it's more justified than the advert tag. I don't think the problem is that there is undue weight on the positive reviews the bar has received, assuming of course, that it "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (i.e. if there are reviews in RSs that treat the bar negatively, they should be included also, but if there aren't, then obviously we can't include what doesn't exist). I think the problem is more one of proportion, what proportion of the article is given over to discussing reviews as opposed to other aspects of the topic. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
resource
This may come handy in scope of the possible lack of things to talk about this place other than reviews and ranking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)/Archive_19#Restaurant_reviews Graywalls (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Re: list removal
Resolved@Grand'mere Eugene: I'm not sure I understand why this content was removed. I see Bit House included in the archived version of the source. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Bit House Saloon and Bit House Collective
What's unclear to me is if there was an ownership change during the transition from Bit House Saloon to Bit House Collective. Same business operating by a different name, or a completely separate business operated by different owners? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: Do you have any interest in helping here? You've said part of the problem is this business is defunct. You do realize Bit House Collective is operating currently, yes? I think we need to determine if this is one business or two separate entities. If the latter, there are even more sources to add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: I did say I would. I've been busy on the Joseph Lister article and pretty goosed. We will take a look at it tonight. scope_creepTalk 16:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've asked for some assistance re: Bit House Saloon/Collective over at WikiProject Oregon: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD, if the additional context is helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep I'll let you respond to User:Grand'mere Eugene below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've asked for some assistance re: Bit House Saloon/Collective over at WikiProject Oregon: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD, if the additional context is helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: I did say I would. I've been busy on the Joseph Lister article and pretty goosed. We will take a look at it tonight. scope_creepTalk 16:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Another source
Good article nomination?
@Grand'mere Eugene: Thanks again for your work on this article. I've requested a copy edit for this article from the Guild of Copy Editors, which is something I do often ahead of a possible Good article nomination. I'm curious, do you have any interest in nominating or co-nominating this article for Good status after the copy edit is complete? If not, that's fine and I might pursue solo, but wanted to gauge your interest first! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks,Another Believer, I'm a total novice at good article noms, and I might be interested to work with you on this one. But the timing is off-- I'm covered up with family obligations for the next few weeks, but if you can wait until the beginning of February I'd be willing to take it on. I have two articles I'd consider nominating, too: Siuslaw jetties and Sitka Sedge State Natural Area. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Grand'mere Eugene Sure! No rush at all and it'll probably be several weeks before the copy edit is done. Happy to co-nominate in early 2023! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Another Believer, Let's do it. Has it been copy edited by the Guild? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Great! No, but I am used to nominating entries at GOCE and GAN around the same time. Pickup at both places can take months, so sometimes you just gotta lean in when you're ready and see what happens. I'll get the nomination going! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- I moved the description section as suggested, and will start on revising the lead this afternoon. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Grand'mere Eugene: You'll see at Talk:Bit House Saloon/GA1, I had actually pushed back on moving the Description section, and I've expanded the introduction a bit. While I prefer the Description section first, for the sake of consistency, I won't revert your change if you prefer the updated section order. Looking forward to collaborating here! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I moved the description section as suggested, and will start on revising the lead this afternoon. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Great! No, but I am used to nominating entries at GOCE and GAN around the same time. Pickup at both places can take months, so sometimes you just gotta lean in when you're ready and see what happens. I'll get the nomination going! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Another Believer, Let's do it. Has it been copy edited by the Guild? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Grand'mere Eugene Sure! No rush at all and it'll probably be several weeks before the copy edit is done. Happy to co-nominate in early 2023! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Sources
---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Eater: https://pdx.eater.com/venue/18408/bit-house-saloon ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
re: Nacheaux, Swan Dive, and Bit House Collective
Eater Portland sources
---Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm confused about whether WP deletes articles about defunct businesses-- I edit mostly in School and Bio articles, where we keep articles about closed institutions and, of course, dead people...
- In the event that we conclude both the Saloon and the Collective are now defunct, and we want to document their histories, here are some potential urls:
- https://pdx.eater.com/2022/9/19/23361652/nacheaux-food-cart-swan-dive-bar-move-west-linn
- https://www.pdxmonthly.com/eat-and-drink/2022/03/portland-food-news-march-30
- https://pdx.eater.com/2021/6/23/22546206/plant-based-papi-bison-coffeehouse-water-bit-house-cascade-chili-shut-down-new-chef-nightingale
- ...and this one, from bithousesaloon.com, a summary of some press that may be useful to follow-up:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20220816154205/https://bithousesaloon.com/portland-buckman-bit-house-collective-press (link from Wayback Machine because my browser says the original url is not to be trusted)
- Passing mention in Playboy article:
- A couple from EBSCO, citing a Sunset Magazine and Bloombergs articles, if you have WikiPedia Library access:
- Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
More to add for Bit House Collective
- https://www.koin.com/news/a-jolly-good-time-12-holiday-themed-drinks-in-portland/
- https://www.pdxmonthly.com/eat-and-drink/our-favorite-boozy-frozen-slushies
- https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2021/03/7-great-smash-burgers-that-didnt-quite-fit-our-ranking-but-you-still-need-to-try.html
- https://www.wweek.com/culture/2021/06/01/a-portland-pride-events-guide/
- https://dailyhive.com/mapped/best-places-drink-portland-2
2021 update
- https://pdx.eater.com/2021/2/23/22296246/bit-house-collective-carlo-lamagna-natasha-mesa
- https://www.wweek.com/bars/2021/02/23/bit-house-saloon-will-be-revived-as-bit-house-collective-with-pono-brewing-beers-and-magna-food/
Vaccine carding
---Another Believer (Talk) 00:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify, this source is for Bit House Collective, not Bit House Saloon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Under new ownership
- @Another Believer: According this facebook page, [1] the company is under new ownerships, so you have essentially mixed an old company with an new company article, which is not really how its done. It is a single entity/subject per article. scope_creepTalk 10:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sources describe a "rebrand" and a "revival". Two other editors have said details about Bit House Collective should be included. There's quite a bit more content to add and more sources to add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: It is not same company, its a different company, different owner. Its not rebranding and its not a revival. That is not way it is done on Wikipedia. It is a single subject per article. As its a completely different company, you strip out the new, and put it in another article. scope_creepTalk 14:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but I follow the sources re: rebrand/revival, not your personal opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: It is not same company, its a different company, different owner. Its not rebranding and its not a revival. That is not way it is done on Wikipedia. It is a single subject per article. As its a completely different company, you strip out the new, and put it in another article. scope_creepTalk 14:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- According to the Oregon Secretary of State, Corporation Division, Bit House Collective was never registered as a separate business[1] from BIT HOUSE SALOON, CO. or its Feb-23-2015 amended successor, BHS LEGACY CO.[2] Swan Dive was registered as a business on April 8, 2022. [3]— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- ^ "Business Entity Names returned for: BIT HOUSE COLLECTIVE".
- ^ "Article of Amendment - 108939190". records.sos.state.or.us. Retrieved 2022-12-19.
- ^ "SWAN DIVE PORTLAND LLC".
Disestablishment
Resolved@Grand'mere Eugene: We know Swan Dive "took over" in 2022, but do we know if Bit House Collective actually ended operations in 2021 or 2022? I guess I'm wondering if I should remove "2021" from the infobox, as well as Category:2021 disestablishments in Oregon, and Category:Restaurants disestablished in 2021, if we don't know for sure? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Here are 3 documents:
- Swan Dive filed articles of organization on Feb. 22, 2022
- Bit House Saloon renewed its license registration on March 22, 2022
- Bit House filed an amendment that Swan Dive was assuming the business April 8, 2022
- There is another Domestic Business Corporation (DBC) listed on several documents; DJIM, Inc. Here is the history of that DBC, which met "Administrative Dissolution" (they didn't renew by the prescribed anual date) on October 22, 2022.
- I think the year of dissolution is therefore 2022, so best change the categories to that year. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Grand'mere Eugene Thank you! Does this update work for you? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Perfect! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Grand'mere Eugene Thank you! Does this update work for you? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)