Talk:Last Ditch Bar

DYK nomination

@Bhdshoes2, this article can defiantly be nominated for DYK with a bit of expansion. What part of this story stands out most to you? GGOTCC 18:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

hi! Not familiar with that concept but will Google "DYK!" Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion (or not) of material + scope

Hi @Likeanechointheforest, you're cutting out a lot of material at the moment. My understanding is that you might be seeing this as unnecessary detail/recentism. The deletion seems a bit heavy handed to me, but I don't like immediately going in with reverts. I think it'd be good to work through this on the Talk Page and build consensus around inclusion/coverage/scope with other editors. Boredintheevening (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the summaries and pull quotes should be restored. They seemed balanced. No one cares about the decor of the bar (although I fleshed out that section anyway). They want to know the controversy. At present the page just says there was a controversy but avoids explaining what the controversy really is. It isnt a mask vs no mask controversy and we all know it. It is about the things the pull quotes talk about. So my vote is to restore coentary section. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

So my thoughts, think about what's going to be on this page 5 years from now. Recentism bloats pages because we're always biased to the present news cycle. I think it makes more sense for pages to accordion in size with bold additions and removals, and this is the way we get to the point where recentism doesn't affect pages. But also while doing the editing, we should consider what is and isn't going to be relevant to people in 5 years Likeanechointheforest (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

this material is the whole reason the bar has a page so it is pretty clearly going to be relevant 5 years from now. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Given the widespread US and international coverage of the policy-related event in decent sources, and the commentary/abstractions concerning the event (again, in reputable publications) I think that there's staying power here. With that said, I think it's important for the included details not to become excessive/sensational. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

agree! Bhdshoes2 (talk) Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

White they/them tears

Incredible this article validates such an abusive bullying tactic, while linking to another article that treats the concept that "white women are evil for crying when you hurt them" as an unquestionable truth. This is disgusting ~2026-47553-71 (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, please could you explain what you would like to change? I need a bit more detail to understand what you're seeing as validation of bullying.

Everyone is welcome to make constructive changes to Wikipedia articles. If there's something you think needs to be addressed, you can either do that yourself or make suggestions on here on the talk page. Boredintheevening (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Refs

@Bhdshoes2 Assuming you added most of these, please include the publisher, (with wikilink if you can, it's helpful info), not just name of author. Also, I see some "via The Boston Globe". "via" assumes there's also an original publisher, which should be included. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I've just gone through the article and updated the refs. Boredintheevening (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

oh good point -thanks both for fixing. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)