Talk:Ybor City/Archives/2007/October

If people must have a 'Tone' box

...................at lest lets have it at the bottom of the page where it does not spoil the appearance of the entry 77.97.161.230 11:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)mileL

Now someone has put the tone box back at the top of the page. I will wait for comments for a week or two and then see what to do for the best. My feeling is that good quality writing which is comprehensive, well ordered, informative and uses simple plain words skillfully is eminently 'encyclopedic'. It needs no 'Tone'box. It does set a good example to other writers. 77.97.161.230 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)mikeL

Avoid vanity-tags at top

13-Oct-2007: As mentioned above, having a tone-tag box or other large tag-boxes at the top of the article is very distracting for readers seeking information about the subject: Ybor City. Move wiki-tags closer to the actual text in question: many wiki-tags allow the parameter named as "section" when placing the same tag within a particular section. Those grandiose vanity-tags clamoring for top-billing are NOT encyclopedic: I've never seen any Encyclopædia Britannica flag an article as "Further review has revealed writing problems in the article below: read update pages" or such. At best, a bottom section titled "Errata" could refer to wording of the article's upper text.

In general, NEVER tag an article with a wiki-tag at the very top, but rather, position the tag further down inside the article, trying to avoid disrupting the article's format, and adding parameter "section" to the tag (such as "{{tone|section}}"). Often the best location for a wiki-tag is near the bottom of the article, not the top. There is too much pressure to bolster vanity-tags as grandstanding at the top of the article: some tags are so pompous that they even link to translations in 24 languages, as if a user reading an English-language wiki, could not understand a term such as "unencyclopedic" or "tone of writing" unless translated into another language. If I were to control the MediaWiki software, I would suppress wiki-tags placed near the top of an article, reducing them to a one-line restriction, as in:

• See: Template:tone, in relation to this article.

Any tags wanting to expand and consume article space would need to be placed lower inside an article, in keeping with priorities from the readers' viewpoint. The whole concept of even allowing the top-tag top-billing was bound to foster the current epidemic of prima-donna vanity-tags, translating into 24 languages. -Wikid77 15:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

not encyclopedic

This article is informative and a pleasure to read. I hope no one tries to change its style 77.97.161.230 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)mikeL

This article is not consistent with the tone of wikipedia articles. I hope someone tries to change its style. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles . Llamabr 13:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See the edit button at the top? Click and type away. When you're done, be sure to hunt down all the other articles on the site that are in desperate need of help; you know, the ones that are coherent, well organized, and actually interesting. We eagerly await your "improvements", what with you being a writing expert and all. Zeng8r 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the wikipedia entry about Anna in the Tropics which somebody referenced in the Ybor article today??? Just look at this stuff: "As the workers toiled away in the factory hand rolling each cigar, the lector, a well-dressed man with a beautiful voice, would read to them." That's not encyclopedic; it's practically poetic!!! Get over there, people; that stuff needs to GO!!! Zeng8r 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is a trick to having wilder articles accepted within Wikipedia; see the explanation below, under the topic: Including vivid wording. -Wikid77 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

dumbing it down

Since everyone else is either gun-shy or otherwise occupied, I began the assault with the opening section. First thing I did was change the title; nothing better than a history blurb that begins with a bland title, especially one in the passive tense.

Next, the lead had to go. It caught readers' attention and made them want to continue with the article. Not only is that in violation of wikipedia policy, it's illegal in 17 states.

Several more edits attempt to bring the section in line with what is apparently wikipedia standards. For example, long-ish sentences were cut nice and short, removing that flowing-along feeling that makes some people queasy. Also, I tried to end a few of them in prepositions. Many other wikipedia articles have grammatical errors, and, as we know, all articles must be exactly the same. In addition, most glimpses into the thinking of the people mentioned were also removed. Knowing why they did what they did allows the reader to understand and indentify with the players in this history, and that is NOT encyclopedic in the LEAST.

There are more alterations that I'll leave for others to find. I hope this satisfies the visiting writing experts who have so recently graced this article with their presence. If it is still above their standards, I encourage them to continue the process of removing anything that makes this entry in any way enlightening or interesting to read. Zeng8r 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• For wilder articles, see below: Including vivid wording. -Wikid77 15:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I restored the article one more time. Let me explain why, being more direct this time as apparently sarcasm wasn’t very effective.

My edit was not "spot-on" anything except bad. It was supposed to be a parody of the mind-numbingly dry style found in poorly-written history texts, the kind that make many people loathe history. That style is not good writing anywhere, including this web site.

The problem here is the misunderstanding of the purpose for wikipedia policies and guidelines. Look them over again; there are lists of unacceptable practices – advertisements, first-person narratives, political diatribes, etc. They are not in dispute, as the Ybor City entry doesn’t break any of those sensible rules.

You will also find suggestions on how to write and structure articles. These are not formulas; they are baseline minimum standards, guides for people who don’t know where to begin. I quote: “This page is considered part of the Manual of Style, a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.”

You are trying to apply the letter instead of the spirit of these suggestions to an article written at a higher level, misinterpreting them as unalterable recipes instead of what they are: helpful hints for beginners. If you read this guide, you’ll find that the Ybor article meets every standard right down the list.

Right about now, I’d bet you’re thinking of the E-word. Contrary to what some may think, “encyclopedic” is not a synonym for “insomnia-curing.” The “undesirable” elements of the Ybor City entry are designed to bring the reader into the article and continuously make a connection. However, it is written in a factual, chronological style. It gets to the point and does not dwell on unimportant topics. It is not a personal narrative or based on original research. In short, it is pretty much what encyclopedic history articles should be; informative while also retaining a human touch.

Perhaps the reason that I willing to argue about this is that as a 5th grade language arts teacher, I deal with the same issue at school. All 4th grade students in Florida must take a state-mandated writing test. This is a big deal; they cannot move on to middle school unless they pass the test.

The state issues guidelines explaining what minimum attributes must be evident in the students’ writing in order to pass. Unfortunately, some teachers teach exactly to those minimums. Their poor students are always required to write in the classic 5-paragraph style; begin each paragraph with “First…”, “Next…”, and “Last…”; arrange each paragraph with a topic sentence first, followed by exactly three supporting sentences, etc. It’s regimentation at its finest.

Students will pass the test if they follow the formula. However, they also cannot receive anything better than a slightly above-average score. That’s good enough for some people, though, so the formula is declared to be The Only Way to Write by many 4th grade teachers across the state.

Because of this, I have to spend a good month or two at the beginning of each school year helping my students break out of the formula’s creative cage. There are as many ways to write as there are people with pens in hand (or computers on lap). Just like the wikipedia writing guides, The Formula is a good place to start, but it’s only a start. As stated on a poster in my classroom, “Once you learn the rules of writing, you are allowed to break them.”

I know all about tone and style and audience; I teach them, along with all the other elements of writing. I also teach that writers put care and craft into their words no matter what they are writing - fiction, poetry, newspaper articles, non-fiction reports, speeches, and even wikipedia entries. This is why my students have won numerous writing awards, both at my school and county-wide. But the most important thing they learn is that, in any written piece, their most important mission is to connect to their audience. Without a connection, you have nothing, as the reader will quickly tune out and your efforts will be wasted.

That connection appears to be what you dislike in the original Ybor City article, since it is what I removed from the sarcastic edit that you thought an improvement. There is no policy or guideline that states wikipedia article must be cold, poorly written, or deadly dull, but that is basically what you have repeatedly stated. Sorry, but I don't believe that mediocrity in writing (or anything else) is a standard that anyone should shoot for.

Excuse the verbosity, but I want to make my point perfectly clear this time. If anyone still wants to change the article, I’ll just sit back and watch, as this site is supposed to be all about collaboration. But, no offense, I’d rather any editing be done by someone who knows the difference between good writing and boring tripe. Zeng8r 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)