Talk:McSorley's Old Ale House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beer[edit]

I think it is notable that McSorley's beer is no longer made in house, rather, by Stroh Brewery Company Smooth0707 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that it is notable. References? 72.229.149.144 (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their own website:

In early 1990's Stroh Brewery purchased the McSorley's brand and brewed it until being bought by those seminal suds-makers-Pabst Brewing Company.

-- Autopilot (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hard Way[edit]

Saw the movie The Hard Way (with Michael J. Fox and James Woods) again tonight and now recognized the exterior of McSorley's (visited it during my NY holiday last year). I'm pretty sure the interior shots are not a soundstage but filmed at the location. Can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnorn (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:McSorley's Old Ale House 001.jpg[edit]

This image was swapped out without explanation. Please explain why it should be swapped prior to removing again. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is that it's a better image: it shows the bar closr-up than the previous image, so that more details of its facade can be seen. It's also been in the article since October, and no one's complained until now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I re-added the old image with a cropped version that is closer up to obtain more details of the façade. This one also has a better crop then the angled version, which cuts out one of the barrels. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I increased the size of the image to improve its impact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - greatly appreciated! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: Correct, McSorley's is not a venue. The infobox templates are a bit cluttered and incongruous, in my opinion. Don't take the names literally. In the end they all do the same thing, and the name is hidden from view. I was having trouble with {{Infobox building}}, and {{Infobox venue}} offered all the parameters we need, so I went with that. We could again try {{Infobox building}}, or {{Infobox restaurant}}, or just construct our own with {{Infobox}}. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal talk 16:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, not every articles needs an infobox. This may be one of them. BMK (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that not every article needs an infobox, but I think we have enough information to warrant one here. The address, for instance, is best suited for an infobox and would to me seem odd to put in as prose. Not necessary information, sure, but it's consistent with other articles on established buildings. This being a NYC Landmark (or component thereof), I think there's more to be said about the subject. I'm not married to the infobox, so I will focus on article expansion for now then we can revisit the need for one. — MusikAnimal talk 17:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
McSorley's is neither a landmark, nor part of a historic district. As for infoboxes, maybe try the "restaurant" one? BMK (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The article claims McSorley's is designated by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission as part of the East Village/Lower East Side Historic District, sourced with this nyc.gov report from 2012? The restaurant infobox was a bit flaky from what I recall, but I will try again! — MusikAnimal talk 22:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not confused, I was confused. The reference I quickly consulted was published before the East Village/LES HD was created, but, yes, it is located in the district -- my mistake, sorry. Still, it's not proper to call it a "landmark", as NYCLPC doesn't distinguish between "contributing" and "non-contributing" properties in historic districts, the way the Feds do. So "McSorley's" wasn't designated anything, the district was designated, and McSorley's is in it.
Sorry for the error. BMK (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting back to this... so {{Infobox restaurant}} offers many of the same fields, but the equivalent for a type field is food-type – clearly not what we want. {{Infobox building}} would serve well except it annoyingly inserts formatted headers between fields. Frankly {{Infobox venue}} seems to be the best, and is also used in articles on other drinking establishments. The word venue may easily be associated with an arena or stadium, but could just as easily be applied to any place where an action or event takes place. In this case, if you will, the event or action is drinking. I figured I'd hold out and run this by the talk page before adding it again. — MusikAnimal talk 01:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but while it may be used elsewhere, venue just isn't appropriate here, and I'm opposed to using any infobox which doesn't allow the lede image to be scaled so it presents properly. If they cannot be done, then there should be no infobox. BMK (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use restaurant and put in "bar" for "food-type" - after all, the place serves a weird extremely limited menu of bar-type appetizers. BMK (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, all infoboxes permit resizing of the contained image. The {{Infobox restaurant}} however inserts a header that actually reads "Restaurant information" and the food type label reads "Food type". "Food type - bar" seems far from ideal. Since we can't decide on a specific template to use, how about a custom {{Infobox}}? — MusikAnimal talk 03:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortnately, I know from experience that some infoboxes hardcode a top size to the image. IIRC, Infobox parks is one, if you feel like taking a look.

I've never done a custom infobox, so that's virgin territory for me. I'm agnostic about pretty much everything except the image size (although I'd have some thoughts about location fields and so on), but if you know how to build one, I'd be glad to offer my comments on it. BMK (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not diverse food but it's all good heavy-duty grub. I'll have my lunch there on Tuesday during my retirees reunion. Right; such remarks aren't on topic. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image size[edit]

I am not sure why you insist that the two lede images need to be different sizes. I am reverting them back to the same size. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. Per BRD, the article stays in the status quo ante during discussion. BMK (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture choice[edit]

I'm looking for comments on which picture people think is better - keeping in mind either can be color corrected or cropped as needed. I believe it's a close call. I replaced the pic but it got reverted, so time for an RFC. I'm curious what other people will think. Tduk (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • My belief is that the second pic is very slightly better - there is much less obvious lens distortion (the fish eye effect), and there s more of the building visible. The two pictures are of approximately the same resolution. Tduk (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of the image, as it pertains to the article, is the bar itself, which is presented off-center and slightly rotated in the second image. Further, extraneous material, such as too much sidewalk, and the door to the apartments upstairs (on the left of the image), are presented, i.e. the subject has not been cropped into. Last, the picture has been taken from a slight angle, and is not dead on. The first image is superior. BMK (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to change - I agree with comments from BMK. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the first pic, but can we straighten it a bit? Gamaliel (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the first image better because it is centered and does not include so much of the sidewalk. Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First image for the reasons presented above. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no preference, but I note the second one is mistitled. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the first image. The second one is tilted and off-center. North America1000 08:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New pictures[edit]

I took a few new ones, because I thought it would be possible to compromise what people liked in the existing picture, and what was lacking in it (the severe lens curvature for instance).

Any of them can be color corrected/cropped/zoomed but I'll leave that for someone else to do, if they feel the need. Tduk (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none of them is as good as the original. They're either badly cropped, shot from an angle, slightly rotated, or whatever. The one that comes closest is the first, but it's not an improvement on the current one, because it is the current one. BMK (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McSorley's Old Ale House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move[edit]

An editor moved the article to McSorley's without discussion, on the basis that "McSorley's" is the WP:COMMONNAME. I believe this is a misinterpretation of what COMMONNME means, and I have moved it back, and request a formal RM discussion.

It is certainly the case that people don't say "Hey, let's go to McSorley's Old Ale House and hoist a few,", they say "Hey, let's go so McSorley's...", but this makes it the colloquial name, not the COMMONNAME as we define it. Moving the article to "McSorley's" would be like moving University of Mississippi to Ole Miss, or McDonald's to Mickey D's, in that these are commonly used names, but do not fulfill the COMMONNAME criterion of our encyclopedia.

I await someone starting an RM if there is indeed a popular desire to move this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with keeping name as McSorley's Old Ale House per Beyond My Ken. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McSorley%27s_Old_Ale_House&oldid=1208943792"