Talk:Pabst Hotel

Issues

Since these are all issues with my edits, I'll tackle them all at one shot. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has been moved

The article was created as "Pabst Hotel, 42nd Street" and was moved by Epicgenius to the present location. I think that's not a good idea. The article itself mentions two other Pabst Hotels in New York City -- the Pabst Grand Circle and the Pabst Loop in Coney Island. The various Pabst Hotels can easily confuse users. The distinction is necessary. I would suggest restoring it. Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So we'll make a disambiguation page when these articles exist. But they don't, so per WP:DAB I've moved it. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Why would anyone add an image to an infoxbox called "Pabst Hotel" which is not of the Pabst Hotel? Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't bring that up earlier. So, I fixed it for you. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

How is "The Pabst Hotel was a hotel which occupied…" better than "The Pabst Hotel occupied…"? Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it is more professional. Also for the link to hotel. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Layout and existence

WTF does that title mean? Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what it says. Please don't use swear language. I changed it to "layout" because it deals with the layout. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gallery

Why did you add frames to the pictures? It just makes them smaller.

Also, arranging the images in two rows, rather than one, increases the distance between the upper half of the text and the lower. The gallery is meant (among other purposes) to enable the user to visualize the portico and its relationship with the sidewalk and the dining room. It was placed in the center of the article to minimize the distance a user's eye has to travel to go back and forth between the text and the elucidating images. Ordinarily, separating the text that way should be avoided, but in this case I thought it was worth doing, provided that the separation between the upper and lower half of the text is minimized.

Another purpose of the gallery was to enable certain side-by-side comparisons; e. g., between the image of the site before construction of the hotel, which you moved to the infobox, and the image originally placed next to it, of the hotel. Since the two are taken from about the same viewpoint, they make a nice before-and-after pair. Unfortunately, you spoiled that by moving one of the pictures.

It may not be obvious, but the gallery was thoughtfully conceived, and the pictures were purposefully selected and positioned. I think you should change it only for a compelling reason. Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC) (Corrected) Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Because they are squished, and it looks bad like that. I have reverted it, to my version, with frames, so that it looks more presentable. I used the guestroom instead for the infobox, as you need a picture there to increase your presentability. Obviously everyone has their different styles of articles, some more preferable than others. We generally do not use packed unless we want to shove a lot of pictures into one gallery. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Pabst Loop Hotel in Coney Island

I wrote that it was "open in 1900", not that it "opened in 1900" because I could not discover when it opened; however, I found the reference cited indicating it was open in 1900. It is possible it opened earlier. Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Then fix it. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of article

Since there has been no response to the comments above, I have restored the article to its original (and better) form. Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And there's your response. Please notify editors if necessary. I do not have a big watchlist. And by the way, a certain other editor you are frequently in conflict with, shows a bad example by reverting many edits, but at least he does so discriminately. Please make sure you don't mass-revert good edits when you revert next time. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Just so you know, I have no intent to edit war with you"

Coulda fooled me; what would you do different if you did intend to edit war with me? I have already explained myself. Just reread what I wrote. Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure removal of links is not an improvement, so I reverted it. Also, you did not re-explain yourself after I have replied. You have not even acknowledged my reply, so it looks as if you want to edit-war with me, from my POV. However, I'm not edit warring with you, so if you want another review, go ask at WT:NYC again, and add the condition that you want everything done to your style. That will not get you quite a few reviews.

The point is, you need to accept others' changes if you want to ask for a review. A good idea is to reread advice on your talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the version of the article that you reverted to is bad. It is missing many spaces and links, and has one-sentence paragraphs that would be better off connected to another paragraph. Your "Notes" are also not references. It is called WP:BRD, not WP:BRRR. Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So -- you're into retaliation, are you? That makes your motive very clear, as if it weren't before. You're not trying to improve the article; you're trying to prove you can mess it up and make me accept it. But you're not into edit-warring. I see.Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As for asking for a review, you rewrote the article before I mentioned it on the project page. Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mess it up? In this edit, you make "also1469" a single word, force the packed gallery into two lines when it would be fine on one line, and link the subway section wrong. In other places, you leave out vital links and even miss out on information such as its location in, I don't know, Times Square?

As for the review, I did the real review after you mentioned it on the project page. Before, it was merely reorganization. Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for copy-editing "also1469"; that is your most constructive contribution. In my browser, using the default font size, the packed gallery appears on one line; that is one reason it works so well. Vital links? The lead is a summary; details belong in the body. Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for finally explaining your reasons. What about the subway links? The station's link is City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), not New York City Hall. There are still some typos that I missed. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a subway link; I don't know why you think it is. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Now you're arguing again; why would you put a "subway" section without appropriate links? The entire Times Square – 42nd Street / Port Authority Bus Terminal (New York City Subway) station wasn't built at the time; only the shuttle station was. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The point of that sentence is to locate the line with respect to the surface, not the subway. I was not trying to locate the subway with respect to the subway. Vzeebjtf (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to mention the subway, do it correctly.

Now you're edit warring again. Just so you know, you are at 3 reverts within 24 hours now. Another revert is grounds for administrator intervention. Epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. Stating "I don't intend to edit war" doesn't immunize you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You may have noticed that except for the first edit, every edit I made was not a reversion, but a different set of edits. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you've been doing the same as I have. But you're quite the tricky lawyer, aren't you? More evidence of bad intent. Vzeebjtf (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, speaking of bad intent, you give an impression of such in your comment, which is probably not in good faith. Epicgenius (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not obligated to assume good faith after the opposite has been demonstrated -- e. g., by retaliation. Or by edit warring after stating, "I have no intent to edit war."Vzeebjtf (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Who's "we"? BTW, you instigated it by claiming retaliation on unrelated edits and reverting legitimate links in edits because of concerns in some parts of these edits. I merely reinstated these links. Who's to blame now? Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"We" is all the users of Wikipedia. And I suppose it's coincidence that you happened to discover another, unrelated article to which I have contributed in the past, just as we are having a, er, disagreement about this one? Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, your editing style is prevalent in an article that 1/3 of your total edits are on. Apparently, the style there also needed to be fixed. It's prominent on your edit count page, and I see you have edit warred and claimed ownership there, too. I have nothing more to say about the matter. Epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Which neatly evades the issue of retaliation. Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is not evasion because it ain't the case. Epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad to hear it. Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Construction noise

It further reduced the value of the hotel to customers, and, therefore, to its owners. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. This should then be put in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That no one wants to stay or dine in a hotel adjacent to a noisy construction project? We can't document it, since we don't have a quote from a contemporary saying, "Eww, I would never stay there with all that noise!" But the reader can draw the inference. Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but still, we can say like "The noise from the construction of the subway was loud, further diminishing its reputation" and then appending it to the previous paragraph, so it does not look like awkward. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple links to same target.

This violates guidance. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so remove them. Note that this "violation" is optional, however, as MOS is not a policy. Epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gallery

I had begun the process of moving images from the gallery section to the relevant article sections but was reverted. From WP:gallery "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." So, for example, the photo of construction of the subway station by the hotel belongs in the section of the article about the development of subway service. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)