Talk:The Sherry-Netherland

Developed by Charles Pierre

Since at least one editor has difficulty with the statement that the hotel was developed by Charles Pierre, and the statement is unsourced, Ive removed it from the article. It shouldn't be re-added unless there's a citation from a reliable source to back it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Pop cult item dispute

An editor is attempting to add the following to the article:

In the 1969 Academy Award winning movie "Midnight Cowboy," Dustin Hoffman's character Ratso Rizzo tells Joe Buck (Jon Voigt) that he can reach him at the "Sherry-Netherlands Hotel" after setting up a con job in which Joe is burned and Ratso, who is squatting in a condemned building and could never walk into the Sherry Netherland without being ejected let alone live there, doesn't want Joe to ever find him.

Despite being an avid proponent of the value of popcult sections, I don't believe this one works:

1. It's a mere mention, violating WP:TRIVIA
2. It inherently requires interpretation and analysis to make any sense. Popcult items need to be straighforward description with no interpretation or analysis. This makes it WP:OR
3. It's sourced to a copyright-violating website. See WP:COPYVIO and WP:ELNO

Unfortunately, too many strikes for this to stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am an outsider asked to discuss this matter. I am not the editor trying to insert this content. First of all, my understanding of wikipedia is that by default content should remain unless irrelevant. This content is clearly relevant. Furthermore, it adds something that is lacking from this and other posts by Ken - color. Ken's posts tend to be cut and dried verging on banal.

I see nothing wrong with inclusion of a reference to a movie's usage of this landmark, and it provides something else that is lacking from the few Ken contributions I viewed - context. In any case, given that content should be removed with great deference, it should not be up to one man what sort of information about a landmark is noteworthy. This post is interesting and will remain.{outsider}75.80.107.133 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it will not remain, that's not how things are done here. Please see WP:BRD for an explanation. I have Reverted a Bold edit, and now Discussion takes place, but the contested material remains reverted while the discussion takes place. All discussion takes place here, not off-wiki around your dinner table (or anywhere else for that matter). If there is a consensus of editors in the discussion here that the material is worthwhile for the article, then I am overruled and it stays in. Do not return the material to the article without a consensus again or you are likely to be blocked from editing for disruption.

As for your comment on the merits of the material, you have not answered any of the policy-based problems with the material I brought up. I'm all in favor of "color", but it must meet our standards, and this material does not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have asked at WikiProject New York City for some participation in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor who, granted is a friend of mine, but has valid points. The primary point being - that anything relevant remains in Wikipedia, and this content is certainly relevant. I want to emphasize again that the default on Wikipedia as to relevant content is that it remains during a dispute, so Ken is wrong there. As for Ken's "policy" concerns - at least the first two are in his own mind, and present a free-wheeling, Marx's Brothers approach to Wikipedia.

But, *sigh, to make him happy, I will address all concerns:

1) There are many Wikipedia articles where the "mere mention" of a person, place or thing in a movie or book warrants inclusion in the W article about the person, place or thing.

2) That is the most ridiculous statement ever. Everything requires explanation to make sense.

3) If this is an issue, the footnote may be removed or changed.

This "Ken" article is noted as a STUB which means it is lacking in all respects and screams out for more content. And now that more has been submitted, Ken is trying to delete it.

Ken is obviously a valued Wikipedia member with many contributions. His time would be best spent writing fresh material rather than worrying about deleting others' content. Cryellow (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, do not restore the material to the article until this discussion is finished. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: in the Wikipedia article on the Montbleu (formerly's Caesar's Tahoe) hotel casino, it is mentioned that "MontBleu and the Horizon appeared as the Nomad Hotel in the 2007 film Smokin' Aces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MontBleu Indeed, there is an entire Wikipedia article devoted to mere mentions of Mario in any film: http://www.mariowiki.com/List_of_Mario_references_in_film Other such examples abound. Cryellow (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because another article has material which might be better off deleted is no reason for this article to have similar information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am much more in agreement with my long-time friend and collaborator, that being mentioned in the movie makes at most a faint connection to the hotel. Such a connection certainly doesn't rate a whole paragraph here. Compromise language like "In the film Midnight Cowboy, impoverished con man Ratso Rizzo claims to live at this hotel" with the ref, might be suitable since it offers no judgement. However, I notice that the movie article doesn't mention the line, whose dramatic purpose is to reveal the character's petty pretentiousness. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So two people on here believe my post should remain as is, one says it should go, and one believes it should remain but be reduced in length. Overwhelmingly in favor then of retention.Cryellow (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read Jim's comment again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with my friend cryellow. It's a good reference and interesting. I have edited a few W articles myself and no one has ever created a fuss about what I posted. 166.194.161.161 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)