Talk:Hyde Park Picture House

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hyde Park Picture House article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hyde Park Picture House has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 22, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Film: British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Hyde Park Picture House is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Leeds

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leeds, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Leeds 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.LeedsWikipedia:WikiProject LeedsTemplate:WikiProject LeedsLeeds articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyde Park Picture House, Leeds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am giving Hyde Park Picture House a Good Article review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Good job

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
In a spot-check of the references, Ref#6 for Their Only Son & Great War statement is in error, nothing about that film or the Great War appears within the John Parish/Yorkshire evening Post article - it looks like one of the other YEP refs has gotten confused with Ref#6. Also it is unlikely that this film will ever get a Wikipedia article since no prints survived and other than it being a "patriotic drama" not much is known about it. I did find this source as a possible ref for information about the Picture House - perhaps it would be of some help.
Done Thanks very much for the review (and good spot with the ref error!). Do you think I should unlink Their Only Son? Cavie78 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, yes, I doubt there will ever be enough material for a Wikipedia article.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
There is a red edit notice in the editing window re: the "alt" (caption) parameter being invalid. Please adjust the alt caption according to Template:Infobox venue#Parameters' logo_image (subsection).
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This review is on hold pending the alt caption being fixed ~~& the reference # 6 issue (for "Their Only Son" & Great War statement).~~ Once that is done, I will complete the review.

The review is still on hold, pending 6b above - the alt caption needs to be fixed.
I don't know what you mean about the alt caption. The infobox doesn't have a logo in and the field image_alt is valid according to the link you've posted. I don't see a red edit notice either. Cavie78 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, you fixed it with this edit.

Congrats, you've got a bouncing Good Article.
Excellent, thanks again for the review Cavie78 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Picture House, Leeds → Hyde Park Picture House – No other "Hyde Park Picture House" on Wikipedia, so no need for the "Leeds" disambiguation. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Leave as is. The issue for me is not that there isn't another "Hyde Park Picture House" article in Wikipedia, but that there are so many other Hyde Parks. If it is changed the general Wikipedia readership will likely confuse the Leeds Hyde Park with Hyde Park, London etc.. Shearonink (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the location is given in the first line of the lead, which I would have thought prevented confusion as to which Hyde Park it is in. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Leave as is per WP:ASTONISH. The Leeds-less version redirects here anyway, so leave in a way that non Yorkshire folk can also understand that it isn't Hyde Park. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. This just reverses an unnecessary and undiscussed move from 2007. Station1 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Absolutely no need for the geographical identifier. The fact there are other (and better-known) Hyde Parks is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and previous comments. The first sentence makes it clear that this article is about a cinema in Leeds, and although there are lots of Hyde Parks, and many have cinemas in or near them, this appears to be the most notable and possibly only one that uses the name Picture House. EdwardUK (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I suspect the "Leeds" clarifier is present because it's the disambiguation used for the area itself, to distinguish it from the great number of other Hyde Parks (including perhaps most notably the park in London). Though it's not required here for title uniqueness, keeping the clarifier seems helpful and appropriate per WP:ASTONISH and for consistency with the parent article. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, over enthusiastic abbreviation hurts recognisability with no upside. No such user (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Picture House, Leeds → Hyde Park Picture House – Per WP:PRECISION and WP:UKPLACE there appear to be no other "Hyde Park Picture House"s even though there are other Hyde Parks. I would note that in response to Huwmanbeing's point about the much better known park that that park isn't at the base name while Birmingham is at the base name but there are articles at Birmingham Public Library, Birmingham Terminal Station, Birmingham Groves High School and Birmingham Zoo, likewise the article at Plymouth describes the city in Devon but there is Plymouth Light and Plymouth Post Office Building, similarly the article Carlisle describes the city in Cumbria but there is Carlisle Barracks and Battle of Carlisle. Per WP:SHORTFORM the consistency usually only applies to topics on WP that are named after the main article such as Economy of Birmingham and not to topics that aren't. In the case of Northampton High School, Northamptonshire that has the disambiguator even though the main article doesn't. If there is indeed another "Hyde Park Picture House" then that should become a DAB page instead but there doesn't appear to be. The User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation is also relevant to Ilikeeatingwaffles's point here since this is a case of unnecessary disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main contributor here - hello! I can see the pros and cons of both arguments (to be honest I'm not that bothered either way). BUT - a discussion only took place last year, where four out of the seven people who replied opposed the move... Do we really need another debate so soon? It does smack a little of asking the question until you get the answer you want to hear. Cavie78 (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9 months is more than long enough for a "no consensus" result especially considering I didn't nominate the previous one. Also the arguments about consistency with a "parent" subject have been shown not to be true in the Carlisle Barracks/Bedford High School example even if more people opposed than supported it per WP:NOTVOTE we need to weigh in the strength of arguments. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The first point of possible confusion is not that this is a particular movie theater but that there are simply so many Hyde Parks. In my opinion the present title is necessary. Shearonink (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHORTFORM is an explanatory supplement to WP:TITLE, it is not WP policy or a guideline. Carlisle Barracks is the WP:COMMONNAME of that specific set of buildings. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no other known Picture House with the name of "Hyde Park Picture House" there is an arts center in Austin, Texas named the Hyde Park Theatre. Shearonink (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are also lots of Plymouths, more than Hyde Parks[1][2]. "Hyde Park Picture House" is also the name of this place just like "Carlisle Barracks" is to that if "Leeds" was part of the name it would probably be at "Hyde Park Picture House Leeds". In the case of Hyde Park Theatre that article isn't disambiguated and there is probably more likely that there are other Hyde Park Theatres than Hyde Park Picture Houses! Do you think that the Texas one should be disambiguated to? Nobody has converted Hyde Park Picture House into a DAB page (it has just redirected here) and even if they had it wouldn't necessarily mean that this move shouldn't be done. With the Battle of Carlisle there is also several battles at Siege of Carlisle yet nobody has objected to that or even added a hatnote. Similarly there is Birmingham Zoo in the US and Birmingham Wildlife Conservation Park in England (which was once actually called "Birmingham Zoo") but nobody has objected to that title.

See also this comment and note that there is Leeds Castle (of which A-Z even puts "Kent" in brackets to clarify it) and Somerton Castle. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In conjunction with some of the discussion above, the essay Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems pertinent...

Also, the example mentioned above for a renaming from Mansfield railway station → Mansfield railway station (England). Per the RFC openers' statements I would have thought they would have opposed Mansfield railway station -> Mansfield railway station (England)? But perhaps I have misunderstood the stated reasoning... Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to OTHERSTUFF there is probably a greater risk of confusion with some of the examples I have given, not equal and that this one is the odd one out in that it includes unnecessary disambiguation. Particularly since you point out Hyde Park Theatre that isn't disambiguated!

The RFC and the nom of Mansfield railway station was Cuchullain. I can't see anything in their comments at the RFC that suggest that "Settlementname" and "Settlementname railway station" should always (or even generally) be the same. It actually appeared to be over how (not when) they are disambiguated. As a sidenote I actually think that the station should be disambiguated as Mansfield railway station, Nottinghamshire per WP:UKPLACE and I'd also note that the town in Nottinghamshire is probably not primary for "Mansfield", see my comments at Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Mansfield and views[[3]] though the fact that US places nearly always include the state does reduce confusion. But in any case I don't see and confusion with "Hyde Park Picture House" that can't be dealt with a hatnote to Hyde Park Theatre. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it couldn't refer to anything else. For an address or descriptive article title it would often be better to add the place name, but this article title is the name of the subject - we don't have Chelsea F.C., London or Alton Towers, Staffordshire - and even where there is ambiguity we don't usually disambiguate primary topics such as Waterloo Bridge. Peter James (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it disambiguates against nothing. There don't seem to be any other Wikipedia articles about cinemas named "Hyde Park Picture House" or even "Hyde Park". I suppose if the title was something generic, like "cinema in Hyde Park, Leeds", disambiguation would be warranted, but as it is a proper name, and apparently a unique one at that, I'm !voting support. Daß Wölf 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if we had Geography of Hyde Park, Leeds then the "Leeds" would probably be suitable since the others have geography to. It also doesn't appear that sub articles of US cities require the state to be included, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal: Remove WP:USPLACE from subpages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the last discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the last discussion. -- EdwardUK (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the last discussion. -- Station1 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.