Talk:Adelaide Entertainment Centre

Attractions list
The "Attractions" section is a completely non-encyclopedic list and should be removed. That's why I put the prose tag, but I don't know if it's even possible to take what you wrote and turn it into prose. At any rate, we're not supposed to put such info in an encyclopedia. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply.
 * The "Attractions" section is a completely non-encyclopedic list and should be removed.
 * I think you will find that the people who put the raw data there, (which is NOT me), would disagree with you. Perhaps you would like to provide a more concrete reason than just your opinion? There may be some basis for your opinion, but your lack of supporting argument, and your use of language, are simply saying "WP:I just don't like it, which is insufficient.
 * That's why I put the prose tag,
 * Well, put it on the section, not the article!
 * but I don't know if it's even possible to take what you wrote and turn it into prose.
 * A number of points:
 * To whom are you addressing this? If me, I'm afraid that I can't claim credit for having written it.
 * It's a list. It's intended to be a list. Why do you feel it should be prose? Please explain.
 * You can't sort prose. You can sort a list.
 * Etc. (If necessary/desired, I can continue.)
 * At any rate, we're not supposed to put such info in an encyclopedia.
 * I doubt it, but I'm willing to be convinced. What's your justification and evidence for that statement?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to di with "I don't like it" and everything to do with guidelines. Wikipedia is supposed to contain encyclopedic information. A list of concerts at a particular venue does not meet that criteria. It's spelled out in several places, but probably the easiest is WP:NOTDIR where it says "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.". It goes on to give several examples, although the list there is not all encompassing but merely descriptive. In other words many unencyclopedic things may not be on the list explicitly. For example item 4 on that section notes that "although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable." but the list in this article is not major events, but all events. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a positive solution to your discomfort? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. As I have noticed in previous "discussions" (interactions) with you, you are not making ANY effort to engage in discussion, to answer my questions, or to work towards a "win-win" solution. Perhaps you might like to rethink your approach and take on a more positive approach? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have answered very specifically your questions. I have pointed to exact policy sections, explained why they fit, and suggested a remedy - IE the section should be removed. You could write it in prose, mentioning the most notable events. Perhaps we could check a few other "venue" articles and get some examples. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I can't be bothered trying to deal politely with someone who refuses to consider anything but there own point of view. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can clarify for me why you think that it is encyclopedic? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One example is Honda Center - see the "history" and "notable" sections. Perhaps a better one is Cow Palace. Take a look and see what you think. A non-concert example is Chicago Stadium. Hopefully these give some idea of what I'm suggesting. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)