Talk:Madison Square Garden, L.P.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Article Revision

Wikidon, how did I make the article worse? It leaves out several properties that Madison Square Garden, L.P. owns, I included them. All of MSG LP's properties are listed at this link: [1] (also at the bottom of article). --Rusf10 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1) It is common practice of courtesy to propose a move first, scroll through the "history" tab and notify the most predominate contributors of what you want to do.

Company articles:

1) It is common practice for company articles to list in the opening sentence:

1) The company name

2) Tell what type of business it is in

3) Tell were the business HQ is located

4) Tell if is it a subsidiary of another company

You removed number 2. Removing common content is not improving. Your new opening sentence should be sentence number two. You more or less just copied and pasted from the link you referenced.

While sports maybe important to many people, this is company article, and the subsidiaries were listed alphabetically, A-to-Z. Just because Isiah Thomas gets the most ink, doesn't mean that he is the most important piece to the corporate parent (where ever he ends up next). If you don't want to list the divisions alphabetically, at least list them by "gross receipts", although this is harder to assemble, and most importantly, harder to maintain. It is just easier to use alpha.

We need to have a similar look and feel to all articles in general, and to all company articles. They need to have a very similar layout and content. If you look at Value Line, all of the companies listed have the same layout. You don't want to retrain the reader each time to find the information that they might be looking for. Wikipedia is very lacking in this respect, you have so many contributors adding far-flung material that any consistency is rapidly disintegrating. This ultimately frustrates the reader and lowers the credibility of Wikipedia. I am guilty of this too, because I sometimes get in a hurry. We need to build a guide to follow.

Nobody has really looked at or seems to care about this article since I created it, so please try to make it better, not different. And don't try to make it look like the corporate web page. Try to expand on the "meat" of the information, not just re-arrange the plastic deck chairs. And don't, I repeat don't, do like Hoovers with that cheesy, poetic-bullshit, opening sentence to the company description that they do (gag). We need some really dedicated people (a team of them) that want to make a "Company Encyclopedia" and not just a bunch of self-servers doing this and that and the other. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not have that now when it comes to company articles. What would Encyclopedia Britannica, or World Book, or Thomas Guide, or World Almanac do? We need that general template laid-out to give some cohesion and credibility here. Carry on. ~ WikiDon (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)