Talk:List of pubs in Sheffield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a WikiProject which aims to improve Sheffield related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Contents

[edit] The pubs of Sheffield

I have reimplemented sorting the pubs in districts as this gives the reader a clear idea of where the establishements are and removes the artificial seggregation City/Suburb which is quite unappropriate. some pubs which had personal opinions have been kept removed with their name alone added open for future comment as Wikipedia wishes information to be verifiable. This will encourage both ||User:JeremyA|JeremyA]] and myself to continue with the article. It is kimportant to record history of the pubs of Sheffield as little is published and the information of great value.

  • Added Millhouses

[edit] AfD result

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 29, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

— JIP | Talk 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S1, S2 etc

I guess these are post code areas, am I right? Could this be mentioned in the introduction, perhaps? NicM 12:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

Actually, I think it would be a very good idea to remove these headings so there are only two levels rather than three. NicM 12:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Gallery

Nice doing NicM, the article does look a lot clearer and retains a clear classification. I was wondering concerning the pub photos. Wouldn't it be clearer to have them in a gallery at the bottom of the article ? Captain scarlet 13:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a gallery would be a good idea. However, my suggestion would be to make a gallery in the commons and link to it from this article using the {{commons}} tag. JeremyA 15:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hope you wont mind

i added the info i know about s6, ok it's quickly done and all, but it ahs to start somewhere doesnt it? I hope that fits th eway u want the article to look like.

Flo 02:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You've formatted the article ok, but you must remember Wikipedia is not a travelguide and it is not the palce to say whether a pub is great or not. Pubs listed are to have their history summarised, not the quality of their beer. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, maybe you could just put up the list of the areas' pubs then? Their history will come later?

I understand for the travel guide thing, but these pubs listed were not "my favorite" pubs, they are the pubs you can find in upper Walkley, all of them as in an Encyclopedic way.. Though, you are right, comments on whether the landlord is nice or not has not much to do with this article, but still, a list of pubs in an article named "list of pubs in sheffield" seems fair enough, what u think? Flo 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another editor has, for now, hidden pubs with no information about them. Since we must be concise and not transform the list into a directory of all pubs, only the most notable ones should be include; not every pub should be listed (new pubs for example). So even though you might be right, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia is to list the notable ones. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that if you can't think of at least one but preferably two sentences saying something interesting (and factual, not opinion) about the pub, its owner or location, then it isn't notable enough to appear. If you don't have time to think of or research the information now, wait until you do have time before adding it. IMO the whole article borders on being unencylopedic, and a subject of insufficient notability, but so long as it stays reasonably uncluttered, factual and well-presented it doesn't do any harm. If possible I would be tempted to move the article to "Sheffield Pubs" or "Pubs in Sheffield" and add a lot more content about the general history of Sheffield pubs, but I don't know the time or knowledge of the subject to do that (if there is even enough material to make a cohesive article rather than list). NicM 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC).
fair enough ;) Flo 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was written to hold information that did not warrant opening articles for each and every pub in Britain, since all travelguide like information was removed, what gives you the idea of the article being unencyclopedic? Material exist, in the reference books provided in the appropriate section. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I don't mean unencylopedic, maybe I mean not significant. Few of these entries seem significant enough to deserve any sort of appearance. Anyway, I am not going to take it to AfD, particularly as it is now much improved and you are actively working on adding material. NicM 09:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC).
Isn't that why we're here for? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that an AfD on this article would now would be any more likely to reach consensus than the previous one. Clearly articles like this one are in a grey area where some editors think that they are worthwhile and some don't. In fact, my first reaction on seeing this article was to AfD it, which I did, but during the course of that AfD I changed my mind somewhat and started working with Captain scarlet (at that time the sole editor of the article) to try to make the article into something that would survive the AfD. Generally speaking I don't like "List of...'" articles, but I don't know how you would write an article on the pubs in a city without it becoming a list—and as the pubs are often important parts of their communities that have been around for a long time (often being the oldest building in the area), I think that it is a reasonable subject to write about. Perhaps there ought to be an informal guideline—something like, there has to be at least 2 sentences containing verifiable and noteworthy facts about the pub for it to be included in the list? —JeremyA 16:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've learnt alot during the process of AfD, it is indeed thanks to Jeremy's help that the article became wikified. Thanks to help and guidelines learnt, I've had to delete a lot of content edited in since the article's creation. If you read the article now, it at least adheres to article guidelines. I'm off to one them ;) Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of content

Ther ehave been problems of late with contributors using this article as a directory of their favorite pubs. May I remind other contibutors that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise their favorite pubs or their friends. Due to the obvious worry of other contributors of the quality of the content provided, any pub that is not listed with encyclopedic or historical information will be deleted in two weeks to maintain article quality.

I suggest contributors provide photos and or schematics to ilustrate their contributions and possibly use the Commons to upload such material ofr use on Wikipedia. Thanks, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an unconventional complaint on Wikipedia, but there are now too many images in the article in proportion to the amount of text: it is affecting the layout, rather cluttered-looking, and most of the images are pretty similar in any case, obviously nobody likes taking photos of interiors. How about (temporarily, if more text is added later they can be restored) removing about half of the images? The bottom three are probably the least nice pictures, but it may be better to balance the removal across the different areas so that the images are spread evenly across the article. NicM 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC).
although I agree with the number of images now too large for the size of the article, I find it quite humourous since you shortened the article ;). Since I participate in the Sheffield Project, it is my mission to add information for each pub, namely, the ones that are/were illustrated, so don't delete the images now. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know I shortened it, but it did need shortening. Anyway, if you're going to fill in info for the commented pubs it'll be long enough for the images again so I'll leave them alone :-). NicM 19:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC).