Talk:Oheka Castle

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Long Island

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Untitled[edit]

This page needs significant work. It is filled with inaccuracies and mistatements. ButtonwoodTree 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all the inaccuracies found in the original article(Oheka was never the property of the Town of Huntington nor the nation of Japan, etc...). I'll attempt write a proper article for Oheka when I have some free time. --User:Schitzonicbox, 18 January 2007

Editor Schitzonicbox edited the article then to removed the Town of Huntington and Japan mentions, in 2007, but did not return to develop the article. It has since been developed somewhat. --do ncr am 06:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict: private home or hotel?[edit]

"it was and remains the second largest private home in the United States" vs. "It is currently a luxury hotel and wedding venue". I don't see how it can be both at the same time. Chris the speller ^yack 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Interesting question. To the best of my knowledge, at some point after the building became habitable again and well prior to the house becoming a hotel, Oheka's owner, Gary Melius, moved into an apartment on the second floor. I think this would qualify it as a "home". Several years later, as renovations on other rooms were completed, however, he opened the building up as a hotel. As a result, it's referred to as both. I guess the question is, if it was a home first and hotel second, does that render it no longer a home. I think in terms of precedent, we've got an answer though. It's not unheard of for a hotel to also have permanent private residences. Several notable hotels, including the Waldorf=Astoria and the Pierre Hotel contain private homes. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS[edit]

User:Beyond My Ken. Did you see the MOS? i.e. MOS:CAPSACRS and the others, and by example in thousands/millions of articles here with acronyms. As this bold emphasis flies in the face of MOS acro/bold/title explicitly detailing it not to be done like this for acronyms, e.g. "emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable FOREX (foreign exchange)". Edit warring over this seems futile when pointed out, and not even using an edit summary to begin with is incredible. Why? Widefox; talk 23:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per IAR, what improves Wikipedia is allowed. MOS is not mandatory, MOS is not policy. You are edit warring over MOS, which ArbCom has warned against numerous times. Stop, please. Per WP:BRD the article stays in the status quo ante during discussion. BMK (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)User:Beyond My Ken, instead of edit warring over it, and throwing BRD around, I note you haven't replied about MOS, or commented at all here. Trout. Widefox; talk 23:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, double trout BMK - it would help collaboration to provide an edit summary when reverting other editors for starters! I've also just seen the dab which is a mess edit warred over with other editors and appears to be WP:TWODABS speedy deletion, but again against MOS above, and MOSDAB. Can you reason why this is important? Widefox; talk 23:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bold has been there for many many months, your edit is a drive-by, your reason for taking it out is not a valid (MOS is not mandatory), so you wonder why I'm annoyed? Well, I am. What you did was unnecessary, as is our prolonging this discussion. Please see WP:CALMDOWN. Your edit was, to put it as politely as I can, unhelpful, as is this discussion. I don't discuss how many angels can dance on a pin, and I'm not discussing this. BMK (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom, drive-by, calmdown? The topic is bold/emphasis, you've lost me. I think consensus rather than one-to-one may be a good way to respond to what feels to me (as you say, a drive-by) edit warring / refusing to justify an edit, even when explicitly against MOS. There's a line between stewardship of an article and OWN.

The dab is similar. I've directed talk to here and tagged, suggest it gets reverted to the redirect to here - considering the robust editing on it between you and other editors, I will avoid doing the obvious revert to the original redirect (a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and place notice on the dab project etc (as they are both related - MOS, MOSDAB, bold, consensus, OWN). Ping others User:Dcirovic User:Epicgenius User:Doncram . Widefox; talk 00:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop WP:canvassing, Widefox. BMK (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, informing all editors of the dab Oheka, and the dab project is hardly canvassing. Not doing would be strange. Widefox; talk 01:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hey, my two favorite editors. I agree with Widefox here, bolding/emphasis here isn't proper. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this article and the dab page Oheka in 2008, and I arrive here now because I was pinged. Offhand, the MOS:CAPSACRS seems to me nonsensical: it effectively suggests that no explanation should be given for an acronym, when bolding or capitalization would provide the necessary explanation. The current version right now of the article shows an alternative suggested by BMK, using underlining. Seems okay to me. I'll watch the MOS page about this, and I would tend to support changing it. I have no understanding of any previous MOS debate about this. --do ncr am 06:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPSACRS seems clear "emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable:"...but does say "If it is necessary to do so, for example, to indicate the etymology, use italics: FOREX (from "foreign exchange")." That's at least better than underscore. Widefox; talk 10:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the acronym and dab discussion - the dab discussion is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oheka. (the old version of the dab [1] had the same acronym definition but doesn't now). Widefox; talk 10:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]