Jump to content

Talk:Adelaide Repertory Theatre: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 35: Line 35:


:See the discussion at [[User_talk:Moviefreak26#Adelaide_Repertory_Theatre_-_your_proposal_of_merger_of_amateur_theatre_companies]] [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] ([[User talk:Paul foord|talk]]) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:See the discussion at [[User_talk:Moviefreak26#Adelaide_Repertory_Theatre_-_your_proposal_of_merger_of_amateur_theatre_companies]] [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] ([[User talk:Paul foord|talk]]) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is highly questionable.([[Special:Contributions/129.96.252.38|129.96.252.38]] ([[User talk:129.96.252.38|talk]]) 07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

Revision as of 07:21, 11 September 2008

WikiProject iconAustralia: Adelaide Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconAdelaide Repertory Theatre is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paul foord 12:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Validtory of Information

All information is supplied by me ( Stephen Dean) a board member for 12 years and activily involved with the company for 20 years.

Stephendean 09:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In any event, Wikipedia does not allow original research, but instead requires information to be verifiable to reliable sources.--cj | talk 09:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All information can be found in the State Library and the Performing Arts Collection. Also the Rep has extensive archives. Thanks:) Stephendean 09:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI and notability

This article is clearly written from a biased source. A more balanced perspective is required. I have issues with All cast and crew are volunteers who give freely of their time to present professional productions to the theatre going public of Adelaide. This is a very misleading statement. In Australia, there is a clear distinction between amateur theatre (which this company is) and professional theatre. These are not professionally-trained actors giving up their time to work for the company, but amateur performers sharing a hobby. The article implies otherwise. In keeping with wiki's standards for presenting accurate information, the article should not be written by a member of the board citing the theatre company's own archives as credible sources. This is especially true when wiki doesn't yet have an article on either the State Theatre Company of South Australia or Brink Productions, which are in fact the leading theatre companies in Adelaide.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Further to this discussion; perhaps articles such as this should be merged with amateur theatre? (Moviefreak26 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
An amateur theatre company does not belong in wikipedia. Even the associated "AusStage" link describes this company as amateur. There are literally hundreds of amateur and community-based theatre companies in the world and wikipedia should not be a forum for them to promote themselves, especially with a total lack of third party, non-biased research. Perhaps merging articles like this with amateur theatre is a sensible option, but I would argue that they don't belong here at all. We don't list local cricket teams or football teams, do we?(129.96.130.210 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
"An amateur theatre company does not belong in wikipedia" - see WP:Notability/WP:Reliable sources - these are used to decide what belongs in Wikipedia. Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And can anybody verify that this is "the longest surviving theatre company in the southern hemisphere." Can an amateur company even be classed as such? Vote for deletion!(129.96.130.210 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

An amateur theatre company can meet the notability guidelines. I believe the article now shows this. Paul foord (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a touchy issue on this board, but clearly the tag has been improperly removed in this case. (Moviefreak26 (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
I removed it and disagree. Only minor notability but I think there are adequate independent sources. Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

To 129.96.130.210: the comment about Southern Hemisphere has been replaced with Australia. This is an equally contentious statement. I am certain there are older companies. The reference cites a biased source. But, I think the wider question you're asking is... "can amateur theatre companies be classed the same as professional theatre companies?" They certainly would not be classed together in reputable theatrical publications (I work at a uni library), or by reviewers (my sister is one), or by the mainstream media. So, why does Wikipedia not follow the same standards? That said, I don't think deletion is a fair response. I vote for merger.(Moviefreak26 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

See the discussion at User_talk:Moviefreak26#Adelaide_Repertory_Theatre_-_your_proposal_of_merger_of_amateur_theatre_companies Paul foord (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this article is highly questionable.(129.96.252.38 (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]