Talk:McGillin's Olde Ale House

Revenue

Are we certain of that revenue? Do we have a source for that? I wasn't even aware that McGillin's Revenue was open to the public. --Coplan 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed the reference to the annual revenue from the info block. Revenue information should not be displayed for privately owned companies. The revenue category should be reserved for use only with publicly traded companies. --Coplan 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

References

The article was referenced. Could it be better? Sure. Let's work on that rather than slapping an unreferenced tag on it. --evrik ^(talk) 14:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are zero verifiable sources on the page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit more accurate. This is not a reliable source. I haven't yanked it yet. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think Coplan's interview was published on his blog which has now gone 404. There are a lot of news articles here. --evrik ^(talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the interview was not, at some point, on someone's blog or that there aren't articles about the place. I'm saying that citing an interview by an editor is not WP:V and that the article does not cite verifiable sources for a whole boatload of info. Saying I should improve the article rather than tag its problems misses the point that the tags exist for a reason: I saw the problems but don't have the time to fix them myself at the moment -- even less so, when I have to continually re-tag the same article for the same problems.

SummerPhD (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys - I'm sorry I've been out of touch for a while - a long while (sorry). The interview in question was conducted specifically for this article. I never had it published anywhere else online. That said, is there some feasible way to reference an interview that I conducted if it's not referenced anywhere else? --Coplan (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An unpublished interview is not verifiable. - 02:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research

This is unverifiable original research: ^ a b c d e Interview conducted by User:Coplan via e-mail of Chris Mullins, Owner and Operator of McGillin's. November 9 through November 14th, 2006.. luminosity.antisoc.net (December 31, 2006). Retrieved on 11-21, 2006.[1]

If you disagree, please explain. Otherwise, I will remove it tomorrow WP:BRD SummerPhD (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. It was published by Coplan (if I remember correctly). Its not original research to publish something as simple as the facts stated here. It should stay. --evrik ^(talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"If you remember correctly" is not verifiable. "...by Coplan" is original research. "...as simple as the facts..." is, gulp, most of the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• If there were a violation of NPOV policy or guidelines on conflict of interest I would share your concern, but Wikipedia:OR it is permissable for an editor to use a primary source. There is no new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions being advanced. The things you seem to object to are simple facts. --evrik ^(talk) 15:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This "source" that you think you might kinda remember was sorta maybe published in another editor's blog is original research: "unpublished facts".

For fun, let's pretend we do find a copy of this blog posting. Now what? Now we would have an unacceptable source.

Oh, but it's a "primary sources". Great! What reliable source is it published in, I'd like to verify it? "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

But there is "no new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions"? But there are direct quotes (with POV): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

I'm just objecting to "simple facts"? First, keep in mind that until recently this article was based entirely on that one, unpublished, unverifiable, unreliable source. Even the notability of the place was unestablished. The article on Palumbo hit AfD within 10 minutes of its creation because it had no sources (I built it live, rather than in a sandbox). Next, until your most recent edit, all but the barest facts (location, age and some of the signs) was supported by that same unpublished, unverifiable, unreliable source.

SummerPhD (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, no. The article closely parallels, "McGillin's Olde Ale House website". mcgillins.com. Retrieved 13 December 2007.. The interview was done to lessen the copyvio factor. I can't speak for Palumbos, but I could see why it might have been tagged from the outset. --evrik ^(talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can see why Palumbos would have been tagged, but I said "Palumbo" (you changed it to Palumbos). Frank Palumbo hit AfD with cites to a blog, a Penn paper, a Philly Weekly article and "Larry Kane's Philadelphia".

I asked for sources for this article when its only source was an unpublished, unverifiable interview by another editor. I don't care why it was so very poorly sourced, only that it was. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• When I look at the history for Palumbo, I don't actually see where a {{prod}} was added. In any case, these articles are separate. This article is fine for now, unless you have other problems with it? --evrik ^(talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the new cites actually support the material, it should be OK. I haven't really dug into it yet. You'll see it on your watchlist if I have any issues and I'll drop you a note on your talk if it's within the next few days. (Re Frank Palumbo: I got the warning on my talk page immediately after adding additional refs. Discussion with the editor adding prod/AfD/whatever sorted it out shortly thereafter. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• hey all...been away for a while. I again appologize for any of the confusion, but the interview was conducted by myself explicitly for this article. Granted, if you look back at my original submission, the things I cited to the interview was items such as the contents of the bar's historical signage, current owners and so on. For those specific items, I never published formally on a blog or a new article anywhere - it was an interview conducted explicitly for this wikipedia entry. Now I'm not trying to credit myself in any other way, except that I did conduct the interview and my contact was with Chris - the current owner of the establishment. I expect that such a citation is excusable considering the content that was (originally) credited to the interview. Please let me know your thoughts and I'll try to be more active moving forward. --Coplan (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An unpublished interview is not verifiable. - 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be true - but much of the paraphernalia is verifiable by visiting the venue - regardless of the interview. It's physically there in all its glory, verifiable in-person. If I wanted to make the outlandish claim (sarcasm intended) that the White House is on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, would I need to cite an interview? --Coplan (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The location of the White House is not trivial. How do we know this? It is discussed in numerous independent reliable sources. The paraphernalia at McGillin's Olde Ale House is trivial, unless and until it is published in an independent reliable source. Why does this matter? Well, let's look at another article, without using any names. Suppose someone with an interest in this other restaurant wants to promote it. They might include a whole bunch of info that can be "verified by visiting the venue": their hours, menu items (with descriptions and prices), where to get condiments and plasticware, the full text of several promotional signs at the restaurant, a list of famous people who have their photos hanging there,... etc. All of that is trivial. All of it was in that article. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The new blog post you added DOES include, "pillars and beams are covered with Philly-oriented memorabilia", but not the rambling list. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on McGillin's Olde Ale House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516223052/http://www.nightclub.com/Industry_News/General/Top_100_Nightclubs_and_Bars_for_2007/ to http://www.nightclub.com/Industry_News/General/Top_100_Nightclubs_and_Bars_for_2007/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McGillin's Olde Ale House. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/north-america/united-states/pennsylvania/philadelphia/attraction-detail.html?vid=1194719831229
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928092213/http://luminosity.antisoc.net/ to http://luminosity.antisoc.net/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://citypaper.net/food/restaurants/google/restaurant.php/id/115/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)