Talk:Lüchow's

I Have Found the Painting that Used to Hang in the Back of Heidelberg (New) Room.

"The Potato Gatherers" by August Hagborg. You can view it at the following site where they do reproductions. The color is more realistic here though there is a record at artnet.com of the real painting being sold in '97 at Sotheby's NY with a heavy blueish tint. The painting was 6 1/2' X 9 1/2' and the ceiling in Heidelberg must have been about 15' at that location.

http://www.paintinghere.com/painting/Potato_Gatherers_21126.html

Enjoy. BruceWHain (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Please do not put articles about individual restaurants in Category:Food and drink, articles about individual music performance venues in Category:Music, etc. If you actually look at the existing contents of those categories, you'll see that they are high-level container categories containing primarily subcategories.

Please also note that Wikipedia policy is that more specific categories are preferred when possible; e.g., Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages says:

• Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.

That same reference also says:

• Articles should be categorized by the defining characteristics of the article topic.

It is very hard for me to see how categories like Category:Political history of New York City reflect "defining characteristics" for a restaurant.

I am therefore pruning the categories to reflect a more minimal set. Dr.frog (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put articles about individual restaurants in Category:Food and drink, articles about individual music performance venues in Category:Music, etc. If you actually look at the existing contents of those categories, you'll see that they are high-level container categories containing primarily subcategories.

• I did not put the article in Category:Food and Drink, some Wikipedia administrator did it, before I started working on it. There was a big colorful sign at the top till a few days ago, where the "clean up" thing is now. [This was an honest response at the time BruceWHain wrote it, and he does not consider himself to be totally stupid, but the instructions linked to from the "UNCATEGORIZED" banner are not the clearest in the world either.]

Please also note that Wikipedia policy is that more specific categories are preferred when possible; e.g., Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages says: "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." That same reference also says: "Articles should be categorized by the defining characteristics of the article topic."

• I have done my best to follow the instructions linked to the "NO CATEGORIES" marker placed on the article. Now, understanding the thing a little better from all the criticism, it seems the best way to avoid arguments about categories would be to have a "Category Tree" with about two lines of instructions.

It is very hard for me to see how categories like Category:Political history of New York City reflect "defining characteristics" for a restaurant.

• The restaurant, seating 750, was across the street fromTammany Hall.

I am therefore pruning the categories to reflect a more minimal set.Dr.frog (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I will do nothing further to mess around with categories of the article [I probably will.] though it strikes me there is at least a note of mischief (could it be competitveness?) in these recent cuts [by a different adminsistrator] which originally were more broad based than the current ones.

External Links

I do not think that the collection of musical links on this page is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about a restaurant. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, specifically:

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.

In addition, the Youtube links probably fall into the category of material that violates copyright described by WP:ELNEVER.

Therefore I am removing the external links to music videos and lyrics, which are not especially relevant to an article about a restaurant. Dr.frog (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that the collection of musical links on this page is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about a restaurant. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, specifically, No. 13. "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article."

• I read "Links to Avoid" before putting the links in the article, and again more recently. I think the links are appropriate. One is to Library of Congress. Had thought about having three sub-sections in the first section of the article "History, Music, Cuisine" but it seems to read better this way. [The subsections have been restored.] One was to be "Music at Luchow's" The restaurant had an extraordinary musical life, as you can see from the article.

In addition, the Youtube links probably fall into the category of material that violates copyright described by WP:ELNEVER.

• Though I did not individually vet each link they all seemed legitimate to me. I would not say that it is "probable".The copyright licencing of each link purports to be in order. I have never uploaded a YouTube video.

Therefore I am removing the external links to music videos and lyrics, which are not especially relevant to an article about a restaurant. Dr.frog (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think this is appropriate, and feel that can really blame myself for insisting on getting an answer about "Anonymous Edits". (above) I still haven't gotten one but believe when the person found I was being a problem in this respect, he called you in to set me straight.

BruceWHain (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nov. 1 Posting of Revised Luchow's Article

I have decided to attempt posting the revised article again. Notation and attribution have been refined and the External Links section has been shortened. Also, the Noted Guests section is now sourced, below. Am hoping this revision will be met with a minimum of contention. A list of previously CONTENDED ISSUES may be found below. BruceWHain (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you alone don't get to make that decision. Discuss your issues here, and a consensus of editors will decide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted Guests

• It would be cumbersome to source every guest in the list with a footnote. Therefore, please list your guests under the appropriate source, or enter a new source, in bold type.

Unknown Source (Most found in New York Times then forgotten.)

Chaliapin, Gretta Garbo, Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland (Reception after 1961 Carnegie Hall recital) Julia Marlow, Myrna Loy, John Philip Sousa, Jerome Kern (These two were supposed to have been present with Victor Herbert at founding of ASCAP.) Therese Förster, Milton Ager, Thomas Wolfe, Edgar Lee Masters, Julia Marlowe, Joe Weber, Orson Wells, John Garfield, Greer Garson, Lady Bird Johnson,

All of this sourcing needs to be moved to the article -- we do not put sourcing on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "Cumbersome" or not, the article is where it belongs. LadyofShalott 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have moved all these sources into the article, and removed a couple of names the sources for which were not listed here. Any new "noted guests" should be sourced in the article, as per usual practice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that work, Ken. Now I have to ask, are all those names really needed? They are notable people, and it can be sourced that they ate at the restaurant. I don't think it automatically follows that we need to list every one of them. LadyofShalott 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question, and it is indeed a long list. My thought is that it has value in two respects: it corroborates what the article says about the importance of the restuarant in its heydey to a certain segment of NY society, and it also shows that the place continued to be at least minimally relevant to artists and politicians well into its dotage. That being said, there's a distinct different between those who, in an earlier age, were habitués of the place (much like the more recent denizens of Elaine's), and those that more recently may have gone there a couple of times, enough to have been noted by the New York Times. Having done the grunt work of transferring the sources, I'm obviously somewhat invested in keeping the list, so I'll let others make the call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nov. 1 Revision

Disputed changes of November 2

"Legend"

The "legend" at the the top of the article: "THROUGH THE DOORS OF LUCHOW'S... etc.", with its "out-of-the-past" character, helps to clearly define the restaurant Luchow's - along with the article's introductory picture and paragraph - quickly and in a small physical space. It was what most customers saw on entering the restaurant for about 80 years. It should therefore REMAIN at the top of the article. The corresponding footnote: "Words of the "legend" drawn by James Montgomery Flagg, ...etc.", however, when placed directly below the "legend" in the text, ENCUMBER IT, and should therefore be left to the Notes.

When the footnote is directly below the quote as arranged on Nov. 2, it is not clear what the footnote is referring to. In addition , the footnote has been revised to include a link to designer of the "legend" Flagg, which has been omitted from the Nov. 2 revision. Also, the entire Quotation Box looks "sloppy" (becuase of its configuration) and "out of context" (because of its positions in the article) in the Nov. 2 revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceWHain (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 November 2011‎ (UTC)

No, it will not remain there. I have reverted. Go find me another article on Wikipedia that starts with a banner quotation at the top. I suggest you read WP:OWN, you do not own this article, or this talk page, and you have no veto over how it wil be laid out.

Comments on this page are intended to be in chronological order, the way you have it laid out is unintelligible. I am moving this to the bottom, where the vast majority of editors will expect to find new commentary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the "legend" quote box, in an effort to offer a compromise which might be acceptable to all, I've moved it up to the top of the history section, so it is in view of the reader when they open the article, but moved it to the left so the text will flow around it (this also visually balances the largeish picture on the right top). In this place it now proceeds any discussion of the restaurant's history, providing the context that I believe BruceWHain was concerned about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This page

The intention of the talk page is not to act as a scratch pad for any one editor, but to serve as a conduit for discussion between any editor interested in editing this article. I have therefore put the sections into standard chronological order, in order to promote its use by other editors, and to increase its intelligibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BruceWHain (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Location

The location of Luchow's was not that of the current building with the address 110 E. 14th. The address was often given as 110-112 or something but I took that out because it seemed classier the other way. (...speaking of accurately verifying and sourcing stuff you include in articles - like the interior layout of the restaurant, my (possibly accurate) info, which you aped, Mr. Ken. But this is the type of thing you get when people who are durnk - in more ways than one - are allowed to highjack articles, complete with pedantic Wikipediations.) It was to the east of that building, the dorm. Probably directly east, where P. C. Richard is now. East of that was a parking lot, also in the current P. C. Richard plot. (And really, you should remove that picture of poor Old Shteinweg. Hell it's ugly. I'm sure he would prefer it that way if he was alive. - and after all, what's the liklihood that story about the loan is true? -- The patron saint quote is to be found in the Cookbook, probably Mitchell's own words as he was about making some fluff to keep the book entertaining.) Sorry to Disappoint, B. Hain50.14.180.134 (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality

Oh, and: Only C Quality? ...after two years of extensive editing, almost exclusively by Mr. Ken? Perhaps we should brush up on our grammer! B. Hain 50.14.180.134 (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Whaddya expect, the writing is mostly yours.

BTW, editing using an IP when your account is indef blocked is not allowed. Do it again and your edits will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)