Talk:Portland Mercury

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Portland Mercury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615164746/http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewCompany?oid=oid%3A8252 to http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewCompany?oid=oid%3A8252

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Page title

I saw The Portland Mercury was moved to Portland Mercury. Do we go with official title, or common name? Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Have you even looked, or picked up a copy? here, there is no the in the mailing name. The common name NOW is without the. https://www.portlandmercury.com/contact-information. https://www.portlandmercury.com/issues/2018 skim through. Around 9/2018, you'll see they now consistently omit the word the. See https://www.portlandmercury.com/authors/4416614/alex-zielinski see how the profile does not have the word the italicized. I felt this was an uncontroversial change. Do you have objections? Graywalls (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Contributors and staff section

I am wondering if this section is even warranted. Graywalls (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

These two good article listed articles about two smaller newspapers are worth a look. You'll see neither of them have a staff directory. Technique_(newspaper), The Register-Guard. Graywalls (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 layoff and revenue sources

These things were notable enough that the regional newspaper The Oregonian chose to discuss it. An editor argued it was "unnecessary/superfluous", said it didn't belong in the history section. I disagree in their editorial decision to claim it is superfluous, because it was actually from a reliable source that is independent from the subject. If they don't agree with being in the history section, that's something that can be discussed. @Constablequackers: Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

All right, it looks like you've already started a discussion. My objection to this is primarily directed at the information regarding their revenue source. What place does that have at the tail end of a history section after a mention of the staff members they've had to lay off due to the crisis? If such business info belongs anywhere, shouldn't it go into a separate business section or even the introductory paragraph? It comes out of nowhere and there's no explanation *why* this is relevant. If it goes back in, it should be worded more along these lines:

On March 14, 2020, during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, the paper temporarily suspended print publication and switched to online only due to an abrupt drop in revenue, 90% of which typically comes from advertising, ticketing fees, and their own events. The paper also laid off 10 employees, over half of its total staff.

Three more things:

1. Any idea what they mean by "ticketing fees"? I checked the source, which had it listed as fees, but you had switched it to "ticketing service." Does the Mercury have some sort of Ticketmaster-esque system set up where they get a cut of ticket sales from certain events via fees or something like that?

2. Altogether, these are grim days for the Mercury, and I feel like we're rubbing salt in wounds here. As such, I think any information about their current situation should be kept as brief as possible. But, yes, this is entirely my own subjective opinion. Also: the paper has been around for going on two decades. It's a shame that a good chunk of the history section is now devoted to the events of the past few months.

3. What's the best way to handle the staff list? I updated it a few weeks ago, but I think it may have since changed on the website. They're running a skeleton crew right now and, presumably, they'll be bringing people back or hiring new staff once the crisis ends. As such, is it best to just keep the version from November 2019? Constablequackers (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Constablequackers:

1 We can leave that out until this is clarified better.

2 Your opinion that this is rubbing salt in wound here. This is an emotional appeal and your reason for removal suggests censorship. Therefore, I have reinstated the comment about lay off per Wikipedia policy WP:CENSOR and I have included additional reference and now there are two independent reliable sources that have found this noteworthy enough to report about it just so there's no ambiguity about due weight. It didn't appear that you provided a good policy based reason to not include and I think restoration was justifiable.

3 See the section above it. I would remove all but one or two people. I linked examples of articles about newspapers that have been listed Good Article.

Graywalls (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls:

Keep in mind that this is a small alt-weekly we're talking about here and your edits smack of a certain degree of schadenfreude. I find it rather strange that you're so eager to include the details of their recent string of misfortune instead of going back and finding other details to include from the publication's 20 years of history in order to expand and improve the page. You've accused me elsewhere of having ties to the Mercury, which I don't. I just came over here originally to clean up some bad grammar and clarify a few details. That was my only goal. I'm not willing to get further sucked into an endless series of increasingly heated, back and forth comments in a talk section about pedantic Wiki-legalese and tiny details concerning the Mercury of all things. I honestly don't care that much. I'll leave you to it. Feel free to continue suffocating the page with primary source tags and additional quibbles while doing absolutely nothing to actually make the page worth reading. What a fine mess you're making! Constablequackers (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't like the tone of "The publication chronicles the Portland music scene and features news and political articles" because it's written in first party voice sourced from the paper itself. We need an impartial third party description of what the paper is about. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Constablequackers:, why shouldn't the revenue and a brief summary of their business model be in the lead for an article this sparse? It is common in many companies articles to have their revenue/where their primary business is. You didn't suggest any guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Of all the things that could be included in the intro, why its revenue model? Compare this intro to the also short one for Willamette Week. Wouldn't it make sense to do something similar? What should go in an intro for a newspaper is what it focuses on, its features, or what makes it most notable. The Mercury's revenue model is similar to that of other alt-weeklies around the country. It isn't all that interesting or unique. At the very least, this information shouldn't be as long as the rest of the intro. I've reduced it to a single sentence that contains the same details, which I hope you'll agree is more appropriate if it, for whatever reason, should remain. Constablequackers (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the stable version. Uniqueness is not a requisite. Feel free to go look for sources for what makes it more notable. I don't know about you but I've not had luck finding much sources on their features. Graywalls (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I know what you mean about trying to find non-primary sources for this article. Publications don't tend to run articles about other publications unless they've done something dubious or remarkable. Finding a general overview of the Mercury isn't an easy task. All that aside, I'd like to restore the wording I used for the revenue model in the intro. The prior version is clunky, unnecessarily long, and contains a typo ("advertisement" instead of "advertisements"). I'll do so now, but please let me know if you have any concerns or objections. Constablequackers (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

So, fix the typo. In between your initial removal of properly sourced "666" reference while leaving behind (originally) unsourced Rogue stuff at Voodoo Doughnut, then here not doing anything about unsourced contents, protesting about COVID-19 related contents, but removing properly sourced information suggests you maybe removing contents because you just don't like it. Verifiability is an absolute requirement. Any content to be included must be supported on reliable sources instead of having editors insert whatever they feel like adding with the hope that someone else will source them later. You removed contents that is informative and was chosen to be noteworthy enough to be discussed about in OPB piece which is a significant, independent, reliable secondary, regional source.Graywalls (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Look, all I'm trying to do with these articles is make them 1: informative and 2: readable. I'm honestly not trying to step on any toes here, delete information because I don't like it, etc. I'll leave any further discussion about Voodoo Doughnut for its page. Attempting to make the Mercury's article more than a few paragraphs is a project I've put off for months. I took a crack at it today and dived into the archives for The Oregonian, The Portland Business Journal, etc. I did what I could with it and please keep in mind that I'm doing all of this in good faith. Constablequackers (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

reintroduced trivial events

@Constablequackers:, I am looking at coverage in The Oregonian you've added, but some of these are routine event announcements that's intended to be only relevant only until the event happens. Graywalls (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the one for Hecklevision is substantial enough, but I know what you mean about the other one. I wanted to include something about the events the publication has hosted or co-hosted, but there isn't much out there that isn't directly from the Mercury's site when it comes to this. If you think these sentences aren't on solid enough ground, feel free to remove them. Constablequackers (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Constablequackers:, Wikipedia pages should be based on independent secondary sources, especially with selecting what to include so that the article subject and those related to the subject do not guide what gets included. Also, when edits are challenged, especially multiple times, it falls on the editors wishing to include the contents to establish consensus to include the said material. This is per WP:ONUS. You have been simply re-adding things you want to include after passage of time, without engaging in any discussion. Graywalls (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You routinely ignore messages in talk backs, sometimes for YEARS, Graywalls. It's become impossibly obvious you're just here to troll and bully other editors. It's incredibly tiresome. When you're ready to stop the shenanigans and play nice, maybe other people will play nice with you. Start by responding to ALL of the messages you've ignored for whatever reason. Constablequackers (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Constablequackers:, the lack of further discussion and stall does not mean go ahead and add it back in. per WP:ONUS, please do not add back in challenged contents simply because you believe should be included. Graywalls (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What you should understand at this point, if you don't already, is that just burying edits/additions you don't like in endless talk back sessions that lie dormant, sometimes for several years, doesn't resolve anything. It's incredibly frustrating as well and at least comes across like a flippant and even cruel trick to suppress the hard work and good intentions of other editors who are volunteering their time to improve and expand articles. You set the bar quite high for citations, sometimes unreasonably so, and I'm not the only editor you've clashed with over this stuff. The Mercury is a small independent publication in Portland. It's not going to have a bunch of coverage from the national media orgs that you seem to think are the only credible sources that should be used for Wikipedia. It's absurd to set the bar so high for a page like this one and others we've debated about in the past. If we apply these same standards to the thousands of pages about small businesses, independent orgs, obscure media figures, largely forgotten politicos and others....well, about 2/3rds of Wikipedia wouldn't be here. You know this as well as I do. Constablequackers (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Constablequackers:, The legwork to achieve consensus falls on the editor seeking to include it, as specifically said in WP:ONUS. You're free to utilize various Wiki Projects page, 3PO or RfC. Have you done anything proactively other than waiting out and re-adding things that have been challenged? Graywalls (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post this message and others on the other PDX pages we've been discussing. I appreciate it. As for this one, isn't this sort of much ado about nothing? Is the Portland Mercury page really something that warrants that? This is pretty small potatoes as far as Wikipedia goes. As I've said in our prior discussions elsewhere, it would great if other editors who write about Portland area stuff could chime in. All too often it's just you and I trying to come to a consensus on these pages and, needless to say, we don't see eye to eye when it comes to citations. All I'm really trying to do here is improve some pages about niche PDX stuff. Does it really need to be so complicated? This is really getting to be more trouble than it's worth. Constablequackers (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to go do the legwork to achieve consensus to include stuff, nobody is preventing you from following the protocols to do so, but if we can not come to an agreement to the addition, it's not appropriate to just come back and re-add after a few months repeatedly. Graywalls (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)