Talk:Gaucín

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flapdragon: Why do you insist on deleting the interesting details which make the former bare bones article readable??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dow Jones (talk • contribs) , at 05:20, 3 August 2006.

Greetings

I've explained my reasons more than once in edit summaries. These are the little notes you're supposed to fill in when you make an edit, summarising what you've done. It would be helpful if you'd do the same, by filling in the box at the bottom of the page. Also it's a good idea to sign your posts on Talk pages.

No offence but I think you need to read up on some basic Wikipedia concepts. This is an encyclopaedia, not a quirky travel guide or a forum for personal opinions. It's about factual stuff that can be shown to be true by reference to sources. If you really think stuff of the sheer banality of "There is a great wealth and variety of food for sale at the Feria" or "The game is quite simple and it only opperates [sic] for a profit because the price of the stuffed animals it doles out are cheaper than the price to play the game" actually makes the article more interesting or tells us anything we didn't know, well, that's your opinion, but this is not the place for it!

Also, as I've pointed out, your edits have contained some silly and provocative stuff that no encyclopaedia would include, and are riddled with misspellings in both English and Spanish ("its wares include cnandy and nut filled sacs and other sweets in there normal packaging") and words of (more or less) Spanish randomly dropped in for no reason without translation ("a Hamburgesa stand", "the electronica at the convento" etc). What on earth are "South Park relics"? What's a "laundry mat" [sic]? What do we learn from a bizarre phrase like "The cube at the Convento : assorted sweets"? Imagine yourself reading this article. What does all the extra verbiage tell you that isn't blindingly obvious or absurdly trivial and boring? If you were looking up some village in Britain would you find it informative to read a sentence like "Baker's: this shop sells bread, mostly. Grocer's: here you can buy groceries. They have all sorts of different food, you just choose what you want and then buy it, simple really".

I'm not trying to get at you, but you did ask and you seem to have trouble understanding why this is not the kind of stuff that belongs in an encyclopaedia. Hey, at least you've stopped adding stuff like "poor service and high intrest rates", "official ... porn magazine supplier of Gaucin", "trying to enter the grocery market, but [making a?] poor job of it"!

Instead, you could be improving the article by adding much-needed sensible factual stuff that actually tells you something about the place: something about its history for example, or in what way it has "been the inspiration of a number of artists and writers" (who?). There wasn't even any mention of the population till I added it.

Incidentally, the picture you've added (Gaucinland), states that "Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images", which is just a little hard to believe...

Best wishes, Flapdragon 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Defense of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not Encyclopaedia Britannica. Absurdly persnickity edits are out of place here. Wikipedia has no space limits and Wikipedia users value this medium’s capacity for additional scholarly detail. To delete helpful cultural details (pornography vendors), information on retail (interest rate and service information), and culinary and linguistic details (Hamburguesa stand is the actual name of the vendor, by the way) is outrageously anti-Wikipedian. Further, Flapdragon´s edits and comments are mutually contradictory: First complaints of too much detail about stores, then arguing the newly-edited material is too simplistic? Puh-leeze, Flappy.

 - Saludos de Gaucin,
   Dow Jones