Talk:The EndUp

Soapbox

I'm sure whatever editor added those POV comments was trying to improve the encyclopaedia, but please remember we are here to report what other reliable sources which are verifiable have to say. We are not here, as editors, to spout off our own opinions about the state of things. Thanks! Wjhonson 15:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I just removed the last round. Keep in mind this is a very popular venue with clubs most nights and they have their turf battles and reputations; as the article improves and time marches on we'll be better able to see he history of the venue as well as the relative significance of those who were a part of it all. Benjiboi 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of new management of the End Up

I have moved the comments criticizing the new management of the End Up here to the discussion page. They do not have the neutral tone necessary for an encyclopedia article. Keraunos 11:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This club was once legendary - however, the new Yuppie owners have made, and continue to make fundamental changes to the place (in music, and talent to mention the two most important areas). Devotion, the only internationally-known party ended in dispute soon after the take-over (Sep 05). Also, many long-time dee-jays have left since; for example, Charlotte the Baroness, Tracy, Ruben Mancias. You may be persuaded by the sunshine-smoke from Sydney Leung, one of the new owners (and a lawyer at that) about how much they're committed to keeping the place legendary - but, it's all too familiar to the rhetoric you hear coming out of the Bush White House; that is, saying one thing and meaning the opposite. If you've never been, you may like it, if you hearken from The Day, you likely will not. Decide for yourself.

Cleaning up

Made more edits removing the personal digs and opinions and added facts. Tone of the 2005-2007 section was biased and an opinion piece. Kept as much of the original or re-worded to neutrality. Added new information based on the format of old information so that in 20 years it will read as "what was happening then" instead of a commentary about personal feeling. More hyperlinking is needed. Removed racists tones (eg- if one out of six owners is an asian american, then they are not ALL asian american and pointing this out isn't needed). Removed absurd statements eg- the venue may be internationally known, but a 4 year old promotion is not. Stick to the facts. Promotions come, promotions go, wikipedia iis here to document the facts not sour grapes. Pzychoytch 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's why I removed some of those that somehow were added. Articles can certainly have multiple points of view and it's no surprise that almost every phase of the EndUp's life has seen both detractors and supporters disagreeing whether something was an improvement. Benjiboi 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Aug/Sept 2017 substantive re-write

Per: the almost 10-year old multiple issue templates appended to this article, including Inappropriate tone:Dec-2007, Refimprove:Apr-2008 and More footnotes:Apr-2008, I've undertaken a substantive re-write of the article. This includes the removal of redlinks, excising redundant and inapproriate prose, as well as adding and updating references. Much of the material in the article is difficult to reference—particularly in regards to the names of past DJ's and to which nights/events they may have performed during—information which is wholly dependent upon primary sources. I've appended the WP:CITENEED template to cover this. There is also much content from long-running events of the near-past, FagFridays and the Sunday T-Dance in particular, which still needs to be added. Nevertheless, if there is any content which I've redacted or misplaced within the article and other editors wish to dispute, I welcome their input. — Regards, spintendo^talk 03:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oct/Nov 2017 substantive re-write (cont'd, update)

Over half of the article now includes information that was not present before August 2017, which I feel has substantially improved it overall. With the removal of the final WP:CITENEED template, the article is, for the first time in 10 years, free of any maintenance templates. With the club's long history I've structured the information in a manner akin to a timeline, with the different periods of ownership placed into "eras" with information falling under which era it occurred in. As far as references the article now contains sourced citations from 4 primary-source documents, 1 master's thesis, 4 peer-reviewed journals, 4 published books, 1 motion picture and 14 newspaper/online sources. Information still needed includes info on the remodel which was undertaken around 2011, as well as additional information on past and current events at the venue. I intend to nominate the EndUp article for Good Article status as soon as some final touches are made. As always, any input from other editors would be greatly appreciated. — Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  04:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The EndUp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Opening statement

I am not a member of the LGBT community or familiar with the San Francisco area. I am reviewing this article because it's been in the GAR backlog for the better part of a year (nominated last November, as of time of writing).

For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow after this section and my first comment (Referencing). –Vami_IV† 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

Any outstanding problems I've had with the referencing of this article, I have already taken care of (redundant instances of citation [3].) The two uses of full-form syntax for a single book bothers me, but it happens literally only twice, so I will make no further mention of it.

History

This section feels incomplete, to put it bluntly. I feel I've been given a TL;DR version rather than a full, comprehensive history (examples: "Helmut Hanken era" and "Carl Hanken era" don't really explain what troubles they were facing). I am to understand that this is because of a dirth of reliable references, which I completely understand. The section feels mostly complete, and does have specificity in some places, such as Mr. Whitmore's attempted murder of Carl Franken. There is also no transitional prose between sections, except the end of "Helmut Hanken era."

I see what you mean. I think that in this case, not every ownership era encountered troubles, so I didn't want to make the headings too much about particular issues, since the most noteworthy items from each era differed from each other somewhat. In the frenetic world of nightclubs, the only relationship of substance between the clientele, the music and the atmosphere is that of the owner, in particular, the owner's style of management, which sets the tone for everything else. This tone changes from owner to owner, but the impact that each owner has is a consistent impact which largely determines the success or decline of a club. And the change in ownership through death or through sale helps to provide for a natural transition between the era's. As far as a comprehensive history, that has yet to be written, although Marke B's account comes close, I've already used a lot from it and wanted to stop short of using too much.  spintendo  21:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Carl Hanken era

• With a new executor in control, Helmut Hanken's estate immediately sold the club to Carl Hanken. Uncited.

 Fixed  spintendo  21:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.