Talk:Ybor City/Archives/2007/September

separate history article?
Why should there be a separate Ybor history article? Now there's two almost identical pages about the same topic. Seems redundant, imo. Zeng8r 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

cleanup and tone banners
Several users from the area have been perfecting that article for months. I sent the link to a local university history professor and Ybor expert who thought it was outstanding. What's the problem with it? Zeng8r 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article, from a pure literary perspective, is brilliant, and I've no doubt it's accurate, but I don't think it has the appropriate tone for a Wikipedia article - it needs to be cold and encyclopedic. While the writing style you put it in is quirky and interesting, it is in sharp contrast to other articles in a similar vein, and Wikipedia needs to be consistent in this regard.  You're a great writer, so much so that I initially thought you'd plagiarised most of it, but then I changed my mind when I went to your userpage and found out you were a teacher.  I've put the article up for cleanup, though, not because I think it is horrible but because I want more experienced editors than me to have a look at this and judge it for themselves. Deus Ex Machina 02:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First time I've ever been told my writing was too good... Seriously, tho, "encyclopedic" doesn't have to equal boring, cold, or poorly written. Many wikipedia articles are put together piecemeal, with one line here written by one person, another paragraph there repeating similar information by somebody else, a random fact tossed into the middle of nowhere, etc., with no central focus or flow. The Ybor article used to be like that, but was shaped and expanded for better flow. If interesting writing doesn't fit wikipedia's "style", then hack away. Zeng8r 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I think I'll let more experienced editors have a go, and my notification for cleanup should draw attention. Deus Ex Machina 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The tone banner, maybe. Clean-up? Not applicable at all, imo. Zeng8r 03:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it is, particularly relating to the History section, whose article is a complete facsimile. This could be shortened during cleanup, or the article removed. Deus Ex Machina 04:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the structure of the article is not the issue. It's the tone that is the primary concern and it can be easily reworded ton conform with Wiki's policy. --Moreau36 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be best if that were left up to other, uninvolved editors.. I'd do it myself but I wouldn't want to mess it up. Deus Ex Machina 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Like any editor, if you feel like it needs restructured, go ahead and edit. That's what I'm doing with many articles that are "long in the tooth". I went ahead and made household changes to those articles. (The Weather Channel (United States) for example). --Moreau36 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means; if it has "too many notes", slice and dice away. What the world needs is more dry history texts, imo. Zeng8r 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion

 * I reviewed the article in response to the posting at 3rd Opinion. I find it to read like a travel brochure rather than an encyclopedia.  The information is really good, but it seems like the author is trying to sell vacations rather than educate.  It is a matter of style rather than writing quality. --Kevin Murray 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sell vacations"??? Wow, that's original. Did you actually read the entry? Do you think that a Lector is some kind of tour guide? Or that I'm selling vacation packages for guava tree hunts? Maybe memberships to long-closed social clubs? And what's with the "promotional jargon" remark??? All I'm selling is the facts. Buddy, your impression is so far off that it's laughable.


 * Go ahead and "fix" all the problems; it'll be a learning experience to such writing luminaries at work. I'll have to content myslef with writing the Ybor City curriculum for the Hillsborough County school system. Funny how local history experts seem to think the booklette on which this wikipedia article is based is very educational indeed. But what do they know compared to random dudes from San Fran and Australia... Zeng8r 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is really no reason for your hostility. You've done a fine job in bringing great info to the project.  It is just a matter of a style which does not mesh with the consistency of the project.  --Kevin Murray 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

When you type that it "reads like a travel brochure", you were obviously looking for a reaction. You got it.

By the way, if the style of this article "doesn't mesh" with wikipedia, you certainly have a lot of work to do. I'd recommend starting with the Featured Articles section; a lot of those have some life to them as well. Zeng8r 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not looking for a reaction. Perhaps my wording was insensitive, but WP is not always a nurturing place.  Yes we want to have fun but frequently you will need a thick skin.  I may be wrong, but I have offered my opinion.  You might seek broader support including authors of other articles which you admire.  Maybe you could cite some examples of other WP articles featuring this style.  I don't dislike the style, just don't see it as encyclopedic.  --Kevin Murray 01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The false "encyclopedic" charge was already addressed in the loooong explanation I wrote earlier today at the bottom of this talk page. Did you bother to read it? Or to compare the Ybor entry to the attributes of a perfect wikipedia article, as also suggested? You should.

Back to your original remark. The only reason you could possibly have for thinking that a history article seemed like a travel brochure was that it painted a long-gone time and place as somewhere interesting that might have been a nice place to visit. The article made Ybor City come alive. That's the ultimate goal of any written history, imo, in an encyclopedia or anywhere else.

(BTW, I realize that I'm coming across as somewhat of an pompous ass in this discussion, even though I'm really not. But WP is not always a nurturing place, you know.) Zeng8r 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. We are a team and need to understand that tempers flair etc.  No harm no foul and no hard feelings.   --Kevin Murray 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)