Talk:Trocadero

Editors with a certain level of retentive fixation who don't really read entries and have little thought for the reader are likely to make bumbles like separating Trocadero from Trocadéro. The two entries complete one another. Irritatingly obtuse. --Wetman 04:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

An anonymous user made a separate little article for each local Trocadero (which is fine) but deleted the material from this entry (which is not fine). I reverted the damage here. Some duplication of text at Wikipedia is no problem at all. Context is a concept not everyone seems capable of grasping. --Wetman 05:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

agreed, but not total duplication of content, this article should trim/summarise the main things in each club/restaurant and attempt to link them together, for example the external links can live in their own articles. clarkk 10:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing links, in this case, is like removing sources: they are the source of information in the text. Editor A removes them, then later Editor B removes the text, as "undocumented assertion" or somesuch. Does removing links service the reader? I restored them. Editing at the various local articlettes, will eventually turn each into a main article on its local subject. Meanwhile the amusing general phenomenon can be traced here, for those with a more-than-local horizon. And why not? --Wetman 17:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because the fact that a few venues have shared a name is scarcely encyclopedic and this is not normal Wikipedia practice. It makes assumptions that this is significant which are unsubstantiated and unconvincing and breaches the rule that Wikipedia should have one article on each subject and generates inconsistency. You got the name of the ballet company wrong by the way, or at least neither you nor anyone else had corrected it. Anyway, I've just tidied things up a bit as I don't care much about this. I can't remember how I got from the Royal Artillery Museum to here, but that's how things happen in Wikipedia. CalJW 11:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see now that some previous editor, in order to create a Trocadero (disambiguation) page, removed the opening paragraph, which I have replaced. No wonder CalJW was dumbfounded:

The Battle of Trocadero in southern Spain, a citadel held by liberal Spanish forces that was taken by the French troops sent by Charles X, in 1823, was commemorated in the Place du Trocadéro, Paris, and the monumental glamor of the Parisian site has given rise to a variety of locales bearing its name.

Consequently, Trocadero is the name of several restaurants and clubs throughout the world.

The subject of this article is "Trocadero"; it traces the apparent mere circumstance "that a few venues have shared a name" is in fact modestly significant. A good comparable article could trace Ritz, from César Ritz to Ritz Hotel, to "ritzy" to Ritz Crackers, as a kind of expanded disambiguation page. This page demonstrates that "Trocadero" is a kind of meme, though not to CalJW, apparently. No matter. With the restored opening statement, the sense is restored. The spin-off articles will develop their own weight: no reason on their account to impoverish this article now. "Normal Wikipedia practice" and "the rule that Wikipedia should have one article on each subject" are doubtless figments of an authoritarian training. --Wetman 13:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a wild and baseless personal attack that reflects very badly on you. I am passionately committed to democracy, but the issue isn't actually relevant. You seem to place great reliance on personal attacks and intimidation to get your way. CalJW 18:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The reader may easily judge whether this editor's motives are constructive in this particular case simply by looking for his name at the Page Histories of the multiple pages he created by attempting to disassemble this one: has any new information been entered in them?

All fixed now. Very tiresome to have to go through the two- and three-line fragmentary "stubs" to complete their references and make them full entries that make sense to the Wikipedia reader. Most articles can be broken into fragmentary "stubs" in this simple-minded fashion, paragraph by paragraph. The thoughtful method is to leave a condensed version of each removed section at the original article, with a Main article..." heading for the newly-created stub. This is a good deal of work, however, and requires some thought. --Wetman 23:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"This page is a clear breach of the rule that we have one article on a topic. We do not need to versions of the same material that may become contradictory." (CalJW's edit summary in suppressing the general background information that isd actually the topic here!)

Now 100 percent disambiguation page

The information at the top was about the battle, the area in Paris, and the London restaurant. All the info was also in each article. The so-called Trocadero (disambiguation) dab page did not include restaurants, and both were mostly disambiguation and also mostly a mess. It even said the battle closed in 1965 (or was it the area of Paris?), not quite clear. If the editors from the above 2005 discussion want an article detailing the relationship between the battle, the area nad the restaurant, why not add an article Trocadero (name origin) or the like? No, never mind, I'll do it, but really the two articles should just mention that the name comes from the battle. Chris the speller 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

100 per cent! Unspeakably brilliant! Now we're all in the dark, readers included, as to why the London restaurant might have been named Trocadero: see Trocadero (London). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 12:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC).