Talk:Nightlife legislation of the United States

New Page

Why did you move and rename the New York City and Other States Nightlife legislations? I had just uploaded this! Quite rude! Also if you'll look other states are mentioned.

if it includes other states, it should be a more general title. otherwise the title gives precedence to NYC. i didn't see the other states, sorry! ninety:one 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's got Louisiana and Ohio and I expect other Wikipedia editors to add information about other states and their laws as well. If it saves one person then the page is worth it.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

if it includes other states, it should be a more general title. otherwise the title gives precedence to NYC. i didn't see the other states, sorry! ninety:one 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

you see, you can't just have an entire article on NYC then some other states under the current name, it is either 'Nightlife legislation in New York City' or 'Nightlife legislation in the United States'. ninety:one 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No but it STARTED in New York, Okay? Read the article.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

yah, but the article now refers to more than NYC. ninety:one 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the page originated from the Imette St. Guillen and Jennifer Moore Wiki pages as another editor had suggested some time ago to split the section so after much editing, re-research, etc. I did same. Those two pages now link to this new one so the title of the page is proper.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

reffered to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal ninety:one 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems obvious that the article should either be called New York City Nightlife legislation and be about that or be called United States Nightlife Legislation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micahmedia (talk • contribs) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Nightlife laws which can be later easily modified if the article grows too large and needs to be split; this would encompass any legislation and isn't restricted to one city. I think you'll find there is a lot of material to cover this and San Francisco has a ton - these issues are why the Entertainment Commission was established there. In any case this seems a short and clear title. Banjiboi 06:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Benjiboi, I think if the article only covers the US, then we should acknowledge this. Would 'United States Nightlife legislation' be acceptable to you? PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should work toward expanding it a bit then so it speaks a bit more to the worldwide audience. I suggest that even if you go with what you have presently keep the title quite short as even if we had a sister article ____ issues in Europe we'd likely merge the two and present a more worldwide view anyway. One way to resolve this is simply add some material to help show that this is not isolated to the US; Canada, Britain and Australia all have similar nightlife issues and this site covers us all. An easier solution than that is to put a {{worldwide}} tag that we acknowledge the article needs expanding towards a worldwide perspective. I would also suggest "Law" vs "legislation" as legislation is about the process of making laws and the laws themselves whereas "laws" is broader and includes local policies that might not yet technically be laws. It's a semantic issue but whichever we do we can also create redirects to ensure both words come here for this subject. Banjeboi 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

but since the issues are somewhat similar

The situation in the UK is partially covered by the Licensing laws of the United Kingdom article. PhilKnight (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, that article is a bit wonky. We could probably just pull a summary paragraph from the lede over there and link to the main article. Adding prohibition to "see also" section would make sense. Banjeboi 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that given we have a lot of information about NY, having a single UK paragraph could result in a lopsided article. PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you already have a lopsided article but it certainly could be worse! Lol! I think the lede should be bolstered a bit to generally introduce themes of intertwined subjects of entertainment clubs, alcohol, gun violence and youth culture(s) and how laws are created and modified to address those issues. The New York 2006 incidents could be used to illustrate the influence that gun violence and public outcry (opinion) plays. There is also age of consent laws and how 18 & under clubs operate. By broadening the focus you reach more people who are interested in the subject including those interested in just the NYC parts. A well-written article helps ensure the reader gets through the whole piece rather than just the intro. Some of the finer details might work better in the target articles about the specific incidents; for instance we could refer to the death of "X" as tragic and then in he article about "X"'s death show why it was tragic. We then use that incident to show what was the impact. Banjeboi 20:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I agree that the article should be renamed to take NYC out of the title. It may have originated in NYC, but the article can explain that fine, and the "and other states" does sway the title into the wrong direction and it isn't very encyclopedic, its more the title of a newspaper or magazine article on the subject, so my comment for concensus would be to rename it to "US Nightlife Legislations" and expand it to cover more of the US. --SGGH ^speak! 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Or remove the info for the other states and just have "New York city Nightlife Legislations". The article can still have info on how the NYC legislations affected other states, but I would say you can't keep the NYC and the "other states" both in the title. "Other states" has to be removed altogether, I would say. --SGGH ^speak! 14:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See also section

I have removed the articles that are already linked to in the main space of this article. What is the "editorial" reason for repeating them? Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is one. The "See also" section serves as a waiting room of sorts for links awaiting to get into the article; as soon as they have been integrated there they can be removed from the see also section; likewise if text is deleted from the main article the wikilinks can be re-added to the see also section. Banjeboi 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also removed some internal links that have been repeated over and over in the article. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't check to see what you did just remove but generally one link per section is fine as well as in the lede. Part of the thinking is that other articles may link here but only to one section rather than the whole article. Stating that, we should link what is most relevant for our reader's benefit. Banjeboi 17:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could MurderWatcher1 explain why he disagrees? PhilKnight (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the See also section and asked that user to use the talk page as well. He has labeled my edits as vandalism but I have come here. Thank you --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I will also state that although I do think links aren't usually to be repeated in the "See also" section with few well-reasoned exceptions, this article needs lots of work so this issue doesn't, to me at least, seem like that big of deal. I would like MurderWatcher1 to share why of the dozens of links we should make an exception to those; my hunch is that we should instead focus on writing a better article that will encourage the readers to check those articles out instead. Banjeboi 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is directed to 70.109.223.188. Again, in your arrogance and a spirit of "I'll show you", etc. you've taken out a "See also" section which doesn't hurt anything on the page! And you appear to be attacking my work. I created this page for a definite reason as, a more experienced editor than I had suggested that this work be split from another page.

Now you removed a link on another page that was definitely related to the page article and that link I know personally because I put it there. Others have done edits which I don't object to at all. You want to take a linking out of, say Monday - well that's okay by me; but "See also" sections are at the discretion of the editor and they make it quick for other readers, especially those who are NOT editors to go to a related page.

This page was crafted by me over a few weeks/months time, and I uploaded it after checking almost everything. One person has commented that its "lopsided", whatever that means. My question: do you understand New York nightlife? Do you understand the significance of why all these pages are linked, etc.? I'll bet you don't!

For example, St. Guillen's case is one that I became a part of. I participated in the rallys against The Falls bar, mainly because I went in there, etc. It was a creepy bar by any standard! Now the rally organizer who organized all of us in protests against The Falls was receiving hateful and obscene e-mails on Craiglist anytime he posted a rally happening in front of that bar, so as far as I'm concerned, how do I know that User 70.109.223.188 isn't one of the bar people? His/her edits appear destructive. The bar owner, who is very rich, could easily pay someone to do harmful edits to these pages because he doesn't want this story told. Now I've only told all of you SOME of what's going in St. Guillen's case. I can't put everything down here for various reasons, but I do expect all of you to respect the pages, especially now as the trial may be this month. --MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there is a misunderstanding. If the article is about all nightlife legislation in the US, then I would call the article lopsided, because there is disproportionate coverage of NY. If however, the article is about NY only, then it's ok, but the other states section should be removed, and the the name changed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be better understood if New York had a section on it’s own rather than overshadowing other states in one article. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the See also section because it repeats links alreasy in the article. Do I really need to respond to the allagation that I am a paid editor trying to cover up something? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Article title

The Wikipedia naming convention WP:CAPS says,

Convention: For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence.

I think the current title, "New York City and Other States Nightlife Legislations", should be changed per WP:CAPS to "New York City and other States' nightlife legislations" (with apostrophe). - Neparis (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

if it's about other states, then it should be 'Nightlife legislation of the United States', without reference to NYC specifially. ninety:one 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

just re-read above comments and there is clearly consensus for this. will do. ninety:one 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is an article about legislation then how come most of the words are talking about crimes and police commissioners and policy initiatives and underage drinking and inter-agency cooperation and there's just one little paragraph about an actual law? Arcanicus (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)