Talk:Dante's/Archive 1

Archive 1

stop jousting katr67

You are not the wikipolice and your behavior is beginning to border upon that of a self-appointed dilettante.

I was going to refrain from commenting to you, but your over-editing of the page forces my hand. Frank first informed me of your harassment months ago. The hoax tag can stay. The "media" articles did need to go. However, deleting the accolades section when there are legitimate reference links to AOL went too far. This is not spam. It is proof of an award. Any search of the Willamette Week archives will confirm our awards in the previous years. Or, you could just get up from behind your computer, come down to the bar and see the awards for yourself.

You might also want to take a little trip down to the Oregon Historical Society to confirm my research on the building, that way we can remove the original research tag.

That being said, if you continue to make condescending comments in the talk section, remove valid information, or otherwise engage in behavior that is contrary to wikipedia's policies, I will report you.

Focus your efforts on other Oregon-related topics, since you are the self-appointed "expert" in these matters. I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry.

Good day. I consider the matter closed and am happy with the entry as it now stands.

PP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pspark (talk • contribs) 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

"You might also want to take a little trip down to the Oregon Historical Society to confirm my research on the building, that way we can remove the original research tag." That would be your job, because it's your research... Which is why it's O.R.--which it will remain until you provide evidence. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kyle. At my earliest possible opportunity, I will scan a few docs and the photos from the OHS. There is a stack about an inch high, but a small sampling ought to suffice. And thanks for the comments and your reasonable approach to editing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspark (talk • contribs) 11:56, April 29, 2007

Pspark wrote:

That being said, if you continue to make condescending comments in the talk section, remove valid information, or otherwise engage in behavior that is contrary to wikipedia's policies, I will report you.

I've known Katr67 for over a year as a fellow wikieditor. She's conscientious and reliable—not prone to work contrary to wikipedia's policies nor the intent of the policies. Valid might not mean what you think it means. Just because something is true doesn't make it acceptable for wikipedia. It has to be verifiable too. As for your further uncivil words, you might want to review WP:OWN. —EncMstr 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if calling someone a dick isn't uncivil (which she essentially does in my talk section), then I guess we're reading from different rulebooks. As I mentioned, this will proabably end in a "let's agree to disagree" situation. I'm going to scan my stuff for the page and leave it alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspark (talk • contribs) 12:35, April 29, 2007

I can understand why you might think she's calling you names, but she didn't. At the worst, Katr67 is saying your actions might resemble something written about in a wikimedia document. To understand the distinction, you would have to have been around wikipedia for awhile, as well as be around our usually friendly WikiProject editors. —EncMstr 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pete suggests a fresh start

Some good work research has been done by various parties, and none of us is perfect. I haven't been involved in this discussion till now, but I'd like to propose that we make a fresh start. Rather than delving into the details of who should apologize or admit to what, let's focus on the various areas of disagreement, and address them on their own merits. Ultimately, this is about the content, not about the users.

I'll attempt to break down the various disputed areas, below. My own comments are indented. If you guys like this approach, please fill in your replies in the specific areas. Please add sections if I've missed anything. (I've seen this approach used very effectively on several other articles.) -Pete 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this approach. Please don't forget to sign your posts and indent your replies for easy readability. Katr67 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Looks like EncMstr and Kyle Floyd are onboard, too. It looks like PSPARK has moved on, which is unfortunate, but I think we can proceed without his input. Without his participation, there might not be much conflict, but I think the present discussion is still useful for figuring out what should be done to improve the article.

I'm a little skeptical of the licensing status and encyclopedic value of the images Pspark uploaded; it's possible somebody will remove them. They are definitely valuable as sources, but that doesn't necessitate their being available on Wikipedia. I have saved copies of them, for future reference, on my own computer. -Pete 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Dante's

Should the article exist at all?

I would say yes, on the following grounds: it is one of Portland's most popular nightclubs, it has unique forms of entertainment like Karaoke from Hell (which needs to be mentioned) and Sinferno Cabaret, and the building has historical significance. (It's difficult to say where the line should be drawn of "what nightclubs are notable," but wherever it is drawn, I'd say Dante's would qualify.) -Pete 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Katr67 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. —EncMstr 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I personally feel the article documents a real club that has been/is noteworthy. At first, I will admit, I was a bit skeptical but it appears this is not a hoax. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CONSENSUS REACHED (Note: this tag reflects my own impression...if anyone disagrees, feel free to remove it! --Pete 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Relevance of "Accolades" section

Does this section belong in an encyclopedia article?

I would say the full list does not belong, but a sentence stating that it has won awards from various parties - with a footnote, maybe linking to Dante's web site - would be in order. -Pete 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, instead, add a sentence to the overview that says "Dante's has won several local awards such as Most Popular...yadda yadda..." give the most notable examples with citations, being careful to not make it sound like advertising. Katr67 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, agree with Katr67: delete section, summarize in introduction to support notability. Some of those are equivalent to Grammys or Oscars for clubs, I think. Therefore most belong in the introduction. —EncMstr 03:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CONSENSUS REACHED -Pete 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ownership" section

Does this section belong in the article?

Any section that begins with "Legend has it…" is pretty suspect, in my view. I think a short paragraph about the owners and their history might be in order, but it should be rewritten from scratch, and draw on newspaper articles etc. -Pete 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite from scratch. This appears to be a humorous but fictional account that has no place in an encyclopedia. Katr67 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Summarize existing information: The ownership section, while colorful, is a distraction from the main topic. Unless there is some missing information which closely ties the unusual background of the guys with the formation or operation of Dante's, a link to a citation which expands the guys history is in order. —EncMstr 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Things of value in this section: the names of the owners, and their business interests in Exotic Magazine and Devil's Point. Apart from that, I'd say the whole section should be deleted; those points can be made in a single sentence somewhere else in the article. -Pete 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is historical info legitimate?

Is this "Original research," and if not, how should it be cited?

I think this section is one of the most valuable sections in the article, and reflects some good work. The writing style needs some work, to get away from its overly conversational tone, but that's a minor problem that can be resolved over time. Please remember that a "reliable source" need not be available online, and if it's at the Historical Society, that should be plenty; unless somebody truly believes that the documents cited do not support the text, we need to assume good faith. -Pete 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with this section. Never have. Comment The original research tag was added at this diff, when the article included a great deal of material of dubious reliability, and before the historic info was added. I replaced the tag when it was removed after the history was added but the questionable content had not been addressed. Katr67 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this article is about Dante's, not the building. The details of the building are very interesting however, and should most likely be a separate (closely linked) article. —EncMstr 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

EncMstr's suggestion is fine, but splitting the articles in two and editing them would take some work. I see no harm in a single article, provided that the distinction between "building" and "club" is expressed properly. -Pete 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Unless the building is on the city's or state's historic list (I don't think it's on the NRHP), I think it's fine to leave the content together with Dante's. Otherwise this article will just say "Dante's is a club in Portland, owned by these people, it won these awards and these bands played there". Maybe make a redirect from alternative names for the building if there are any. Alternately, merge the content about the building with the Old Town article? Is it considered to be located in Old Town? Katr67 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Should Paul be editing this article, and if so, how should he approach it?

Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline is not a firm policy, and it does not state that those with conflicts of interest may not edit the relevant articles. Both Frank and Paul have disclosed their role, which in my view is far too rare on Wikipedia, and I commend them for doing so. I believe that disclosure will greatly enhance our ability to work effectively toward a mutually acceptable article. -Pete 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On my own potential "COI" - I consider Katr a friend and highly-valued contributor to Wikipedia. I have spent lots of money at Dante's and played basketball with its owners. I am positively inclined toward all parties, and think all can contribute to a better encyclopedia entry for the club. -Pete 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree it's not a firm policy, it really depends on the ability of the editors to write from a neutral point of view. Comment Did Paul and Frank disclose their role? I assumed they were the same people judging by their usernames, which I guess is a form of disclosure. I don't think either of these editors has come out and said "I co-own Dante's". Not sure that matters. Katr67 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let them edit it. We'll tag it for citations and/or move irrelevancies to the talk page. It would be expeditious and downright neighborly if they wrote proposed text on the talk page for observers to discuss and agree it belongs in the article. —EncMstr 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Added my research docs. OHS wants 30 bucks to post their very cool image for internet use. Will consider posting this last bit. And here endeth my wikipedia adventures. Peace, everybody. :) (unsigned, added by Pspark on April 30)

Again, I think it's a shame Pspark will not be involved - but respect his decision to leave. Not sure about disclosure - maybe they weren't forthcoming enough for some editors' tastes. I don't think there's a definitive answer, rather it's a matter if everyone feels the discussion is being carried out in good faith. No objection here. -Pete 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List of acts

Does a long list of national acts that have played there belong in the article's intro?

No, cite a few of the more prominent examples. Of course what should be included may be a matter of dispute. Katr67 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, give a few specific names, and also mention the genre(s) and types of acts. —EncMstr 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a separate section would be a good idea- name one or two acts in intro, more further down. -Pete 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon template

Is this article under the scope of WikiProject Oregon?

Yes, I think the {{WikiProject Oregon}} template should be replaced on this page. Katr67 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I placed it originally as an obvious well known Oregon location. Why was it removed? —EncMstr 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say add it back. Since Pspark did not respond, let me speculate that he mistook the original tagging for an assertion of "ownership," and was irritated. That is how I saw Wikiprojects at first, before I became more involved in them. I don't think it's useful to make a big deal about this - just put the tag back. -Pete 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

List of bands

Should we select a few of these, with the danger of the list in the article growing again, or should we leave them all out, or ??? Katr67 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since its opening, the club has hosted many internationally famous touring acts and performing artists such as Bo Diddley, X, Big Star, Nina Hagen, Lemmy Kilmister of Motörhead, George Clinton & P-Funk, The Killers, Concrete Blonde, Peaches (musician), The Reverend Horton Heat, Drive-By Truckers, Hank Williams III, Mini Kiss, Patton Oswalt, Doug Stanhope, Tommy Chong, The Vines, Steven Seagal, Floater, Klaxons, and director John Waters.

Many now-famous acts have had their origins at Dante's including the "lounge-core, mash-up" band Storm & The Balls featuring Storm Large who had a regular Wednesday night show at the club, the SuicideGirls Burlesque Troupe and The Porcelain Twinz neo-burlesque act, both of which first performed regularly at Dante's well-known Sunday night "Sinferno Cabaret."

Neighborhood

What part of Portland is the club considered to be in? Is it Old Town? Katr67 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just "Downtown" - I think Old Town is only north of Burnside. Not sure though... -Pete 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Old town" refers to the area close to the river with buildings dating back to the 1880s. According to this,

“ Today Portland's Old Town encompasses roughly the first three blocks west of the Willamette River, from the Burnside Bridge area south to the Morrison Bridge. ”

This would be all inner southwest. That would make Dante's define the NW border of Old Town, if the boundary is to be taken literally. —EncMstr 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

DANTES

Why does the word "DANTES", in the context of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSST_%28standardized_test%29 automatically redirect to this article, "Dante's"? If not to DSST, it should redirect to a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.55.44 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A redirect to Dante's makes reasonable sense as a minor typographic alteration. What does DSST have to do with Dantes? The disambiguation page there has nothing which suggests Dantes. —EncMstr 06:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)