Talk:Hawks PDX/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
TripSavvy?
ResolvedIs TripSavvy an appropriate source? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- This source has been removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Merge?
@Kbabej: Thanks for your contributions to this article, which has been nominated for deletion. If you don't think there's enough coverage for a standalone article, what do you think about converting this content into a paragraph for LGBT_culture_in_Portland,_Oregon#Gay_bathhouses? You're welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: I would like to see the article remain, but if it does get deleted, I think a paragraph in that section would be appropriate. I will wait to convert the content until the outcome of the deletion discussion. --Kbabej (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Update: The article was kept per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawks PDX. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Advertisement tag?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The ad tag was added when the article had just the manager's quote. Is the tag still needed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it's needed at this point. Before it was one quote with one source, and now it's moved beyond that. I'd be in favor of it being removed --Kbabej (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- The tag has been added back. @Graywalls: Can you share specifically why you believe the tag is necessary? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- read the edit note. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Please explain your thoughts here. Two editors here have agreed the tag is not needed, but you've added back. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not a numbers game. See the section that discusses the neutrality concern in Wikipedia's guidelines at Wikipedia:NOCREATIVEGraywalls (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I don't know what you're talking about. What's wrong with having a description of the venue coming from an appropriate source? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- this isn't to say that Willy week is biased. The bias is in the editorial discretion to include the reflection of the author's description of the establishment in a routine announcement. Graywalls (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, So you're concerned about the following sentence specifically? "Willamette Week's Jack Russell described Hawks as "Grindr IRL", meaning a real life version of Grindr, and "the dive bar bathhouse that feels much more like you're at somebody's house than an upscale gym"." ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- this isn't to say that Willy week is biased. The bias is in the editorial discretion to include the reflection of the author's description of the establishment in a routine announcement. Graywalls (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I don't know what you're talking about. What's wrong with having a description of the venue coming from an appropriate source? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not a numbers game. See the section that discusses the neutrality concern in Wikipedia's guidelines at Wikipedia:NOCREATIVEGraywalls (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Please explain your thoughts here. Two editors here have agreed the tag is not needed, but you've added back. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- read the edit note. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Inclusion of trivial mention by a freelance writer who happened to include that place among many other places.. yes. A tactic very frequently employed by marketing and public relations people. Graywalls (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I disagree, and please stop implying I'm a PR person. You've done this more than once now, and I'd appreciate if you stay focused on content and not my motivations for editing various articles on Wikipedia. I still think you should get consensus to keep the advertisement tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop accusing me of implicit accusation. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Um, ok...? Can we please focus on the content and sourcing of this article? I'm still not sure I understand why you think the Willamette Week sources are inappropriate. Here you asked about Willamette Week and an editor said the source is reliable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop accusing me of implicit accusation. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I disagree, and please stop implying I'm a PR person. You've done this more than once now, and I'd appreciate if you stay focused on content and not my motivations for editing various articles on Wikipedia. I still think you should get consensus to keep the advertisement tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Inclusion of trivial mention by a freelance writer who happened to include that place among many other places.. yes. A tactic very frequently employed by marketing and public relations people. Graywalls (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Business registration/business establishment month and year
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
@Graywalls: You're kidding, right? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Another Believer:I'm not kidding. From prior actions, simply removing it would likely get reverted by an editor whom I'm not going to cite. I'm not going to bother going through history to investigate who inserted "April 2012", but what i can tell you is that it was a wiki editor who interpreted the source, then inferred a presumption, which is original research. It's an encyclopedia and this type of slop degrades the accuracy. The cited sourced says "it has been over 365 days", so someone took it upon themselve to synthesize the opening as "April 2012" because the anniversary party was in April 2013. The fact there's a user submitted review in March 2012, more than likely means the sloppy assumption it opened in April 2012 is incorrect. Even though Sec. of state is a primary source, it's accurate for things such as the filing date. The bottom line is whoever fabricated "April 2012" shouldn't have done it in the first place simply to avoid having to put clumsy sounding like "an anniversary party was held in April 2013". Graywalls (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, that sketchy website lists the submission date as "Feb 11 2012", however it just means when the listing was submitted which could have been two month after opening... or it could have been before opening so its listed prior to opening. Who knows. The bottom line is that if the source doesn't report the information, editor doesn't just assume it. This shows the importance of emphasis, or some might call "obsession" with the use of reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I tracked down where unsupportable claim originated. diff."Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." from the policy WP:PRIMARY. This was not followed. Graywalls (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kbabej and Lord Bolingbroke: What do you think about this edit? Pinging you two as past article contributors. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Kbabej should be able to give proper explanation of where the additional information originated in this edit. Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Kbabej:, how did you come to conclude "April 2012" as the opening? Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Because they held an anniversary opening party, as the source stated. I'm appealing to common sense here, but a "1 Yr Anniversary" party would generally be held... one year after opening. Could you not discern that from the edit and its source? --Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another editor added back "April 2012" -- given the source does not specifically confirm the month, I've changed to simply 2012. I think we can all agree this is fair, no? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Because they held an anniversary opening party, as the source stated. I'm appealing to common sense here, but a "1 Yr Anniversary" party would generally be held... one year after opening. Could you not discern that from the edit and its source? --Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the business registration sentence, which also included use of " Hawk's PDX' ". I hope this is a reasonable compromise until we can find appropriate secondary coverage. I've also removed the date-specific category, and updated Template:LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon and LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- What is the justification for removing the information before there's a proper information to replace it? I posit that it is a better information than the fabricated information that preceded my edit. It took some research to obtain that information and I'm disappointed seeing it simply quashed out and almost entirely by you, or others asked by you. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm trying to work nicely with you and find a compromise here. The business registration does not seem like appropriate secondary coverage to me, and the source and claim are not easily verifiable. I believe you found a helpful document, but how are others supposed to verify that what you've said is true? I'd rather not include the establishment year if we cannot find suitable sourcing at this time. If you feel strongly, then revert and let others weigh in, but I truly think this is the best course of action for now. I assume you agree with the category removal and the other updates I made to the LGBT culture article and template? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Verification is no more difficult than any sources not within the instant reach of Google, including news prints, academic journals and books not available for full access view. Anyone with concerns of accuracy can request a record from the State of Oregon. The provided information in the citation provides the relevant information needed to request the record if anyone doubts the accuracy of what is posted here. Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, kind of disappointed you're not willing to compromise here, but oh well. I think we should focus on the year of establishment/opening, not the business registration date, and I'd prefer to see better sourcing than something not easily verifiable, but I won't act and decide unilaterally here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- One of your objection was "use of " Hawk's PDX' " which has been dealt with now, so that's a compromise. You didn't seem concerned when "April 2012" remained in infobox for a while even after I spotted the made up data. Why's that? Graywalls (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would have been fine with you or anyone removing the infobox date. Don't blame me for not updating the infobox, when you or anyone else could have done the same. I can't keep going back and forth with you so please consider this my final comment in this section. Feel free to invite ONUnicorn or others for a neutral third opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another Believer did add the unchecked date into the Infobox in the first place though. Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going digging, but I assume this was based on the article's prose. I often update infoboxes based on details mentioned in the prose. I'm done here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- One of your objection was "use of " Hawk's PDX' " which has been dealt with now, so that's a compromise. You didn't seem concerned when "April 2012" remained in infobox for a while even after I spotted the made up data. Why's that? Graywalls (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, kind of disappointed you're not willing to compromise here, but oh well. I think we should focus on the year of establishment/opening, not the business registration date, and I'd prefer to see better sourcing than something not easily verifiable, but I won't act and decide unilaterally here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Verification is no more difficult than any sources not within the instant reach of Google, including news prints, academic journals and books not available for full access view. Anyone with concerns of accuracy can request a record from the State of Oregon. The provided information in the citation provides the relevant information needed to request the record if anyone doubts the accuracy of what is posted here. Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
To keep or not to keep?
There's been a lot of back and forth here, so I want to clarify, we're currently discussing whether or not to keep the following sentence and source:
- Hawks PDX's application for business registration was filed on July 7, 2011.[1]
References
- ^ Document 78491793-12816844 for the business "Hawk's PDX", State of Oregon, Secretary of State
Thoughts? I'm hesitant to ping any specific editors for feedback because Graywalls seems to find this unfair, but I invite all to contribute to this discussion.
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hahaha no that's not by itself relevant encyclopedic information. Reywas92Talk 18:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reywas92, Right, thanks. Given my interactions with Graywalls, I'd prefer not to remove the content again. Do you care to do the honors? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reywas92, Right, thanks. Given my interactions with Graywalls, I'd prefer not to remove the content again. Do you care to do the honors? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Are we all in agreement re: 2012 as year of establishment?
Resolved@Graywalls, Kbabej, and Reywas92: We've all had input re: year of establishment. Most recently, Reywas92 added back "April 2012". However, since the source does not specifically confirm the month, I've changed to simply "2012". Are we all in agreement here? If so, I will mark this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- The most accurate way would be to say the venue hosted an anniversary celebration event in April 2013. Since it specifically says "it has been *over 365 days*, the questionable review site having the entry for this venue dating back to February 2012 checks out that it has been over >365. We shouldn't be getting into the habit of assuming things, because it promotes factual errors like this to occur in the future. If this event was closer towards January, it could easily have thrown off the assumption by a year. This problem all started, because someone assumed and OR'd. Graywalls (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, How do you feel about me changing the first sentence to: "Hawks PDX hosted an anniversary celebration event in April 2013", but keeping 2012 in the infobox? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just noting that "over 365" was from https://www.bathhouseblog.com/index.php/2013/04/20/hawks-pdx-celebrates-1-yr-anniversary which existed at some point. We have a verifiability requirement. Business registration was filed in July 2011. Review site showing this business was listed in Feb 2012. So it could have been open in December 2011. Without a source proving it, it would be making things up. So leaving it blank in the info box or populating with the registration (the only verifiable fact) would seem prudent. or... email the business... ask them to put the information on website. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Set the business registration aside. Sources generally suggest the space opened in 2012, yes? If so, I think we should just go with 2012 until a better source confirms otherwise. I think defining this business as a 2012 establishment, based on current sourcing, is reasonable and better than having no date whatsoever. @Kbabej and Reywas92: Does this seem reasonable, or are there any other compromises here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- omission prevails fabrication. The infobox could be left empty, and you could have it in prose about the anniversary party. It's not us that should be doing the interpretation. Leave it to the people reading the article. That's what I'd say I have no objection to just leaving the infobox blank.Graywalls (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Ok, then, how about we have "c. 2012" in the infobox? Surely this is adequate, right? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- that would be an ok placeholder since you're qualifying the data and admitting to an assumption and a degree of uncertainty. Graywalls (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Great! I wish we could have come to this compromise a long time ago. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- that would be an ok placeholder since you're qualifying the data and admitting to an assumption and a degree of uncertainty. Graywalls (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Ok, then, how about we have "c. 2012" in the infobox? Surely this is adequate, right? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- omission prevails fabrication. The infobox could be left empty, and you could have it in prose about the anniversary party. It's not us that should be doing the interpretation. Leave it to the people reading the article. That's what I'd say I have no objection to just leaving the infobox blank.Graywalls (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Set the business registration aside. Sources generally suggest the space opened in 2012, yes? If so, I think we should just go with 2012 until a better source confirms otherwise. I think defining this business as a 2012 establishment, based on current sourcing, is reasonable and better than having no date whatsoever. @Kbabej and Reywas92: Does this seem reasonable, or are there any other compromises here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just noting that "over 365" was from https://www.bathhouseblog.com/index.php/2013/04/20/hawks-pdx-celebrates-1-yr-anniversary which existed at some point. We have a verifiability requirement. Business registration was filed in July 2011. Review site showing this business was listed in Feb 2012. So it could have been open in December 2011. Without a source proving it, it would be making things up. So leaving it blank in the info box or populating with the registration (the only verifiable fact) would seem prudent. or... email the business... ask them to put the information on website. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, How do you feel about me changing the first sentence to: "Hawks PDX hosted an anniversary celebration event in April 2013", but keeping 2012 in the infobox? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Name of business
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The wiki page is titled "Hawks PDX" but it appears as "Hawk's PDX (w/ apostrophe, w/o quotes) on the business name in electronic records as well as scanned document filed with the State. Graywalls (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Official website and signage (as illustrated in article) say Hawks PDX. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
::and the scan of the document actually filled out by the authorized acting agent/owners of business says "Hawk's PDX", without quotes. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep "Hawks PDX" per Wikipedia:Common name. Sources use this name most often. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Graywalls: Do you agree "Hawks PDX" is the most appropriate page title? If so, I'll mark this as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
archiving
I needed the page up for another discussion. I read the guideline on when to archive and we're not even at 1/3 of the guideline size. I don't believe it warrants archiving, unless there's something else that is in effect that recommends archiving it. Graywalls (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, No prob, was just trying to archive discussions I believed were settled. I've removed them from the archive as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I assume you're already aware, but in case not, you still could have referenced previous discussions at the archive page (Talk:Hawks PDX/Archive 1). But, I have no problem with you returning them here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can you restore the one about the photo? I'm asking you since I couldn't figure out how to do it manually and have it come out right. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Sure, but you do understand the discussion is not lost, right? You can just refer to the discussion as Talk:Hawks_PDX/Archive_1#signage_photo. Still want moved to this talk page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- correct. i do want it restored. Graywalls (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- correct. i do want it restored. Graywalls (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Sure, but you do understand the discussion is not lost, right? You can just refer to the discussion as Talk:Hawks_PDX/Archive_1#signage_photo. Still want moved to this talk page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can you restore the one about the photo? I'm asking you since I couldn't figure out how to do it manually and have it come out right. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kbabej: Are you comfortable with me archiving some of the above sections? Graywalls is banned from interacting with me and I don't think all of these are necessarily constructive. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- No problem on my end. --Kbabej (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Kbabej, Great, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
signage photo
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedThe second photo of signage which is the same as the infobox picture taken from a different angle doesn't appear to add any value to it. What does it offer that the infobox photo doesn't? Graywalls (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see you've removed. Fine for now since the article is so short. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Spa?
@Fjparisi: Can you provide sources confirming any change into a spa? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Relocation
The business now operates at 335 SE 99th Ave, according to its website and Google. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)