Talk:Pacific Repertory Theatre

Copyvio?

I am looking into possible copyright violations on this and the Forest Theatre article. The amount of work done in a single day are nearly impossible to have been done without cut and past or transcription. Much of what is here may constitute a brochure.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith, my friend, as I have done with you. Accusations such as this fly in the face of that basic rule. Smatprt (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That certainly makes it look as if I haven't assumed good faith with you....but that would be false. I assume good faith in that I have not attempted to do any editing, but I did remove the full list of productions as being a laundry list not needed in an encyclopedic article. Please remember that we have worked together and communicated civily, I did assume good faith untill I discovered the edits you made on numerouse article boosting subjects that are in direct conflict with your intersts.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Accusing someone of plagiarism is hardly an act of good faith. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not accuse him of plagerism, I expressed concerns of copyright violation as i believe this amy have been copied from a playbill, or other work from the theatre that cannot be used on Wiki. Understand at least what is being said befor accusing others yoursel.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper tag

Tag states clearly "or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy."--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that it does conform to WP:NPOV. Do not revert again, or you will be in violation of the 3rr rule and will be blocked. If you have a content issue, feel free to raise it, but your tagging all articles relating to Stephen Moorer, regardless of content, is simply harassment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Golden Bough history

The Golden Bough history paragraph doesn't belong in this article. I'm merging it into the Golden Bough Playhouse article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, @Netherzone:, I think you're much more versed in arts related thigs than I am. If you've got the time and bandwidth, please share your thoughts regarding this org's status on meeting WP:NORG. I'm having hard time finding that one significant, independent coverage about the organization in a source that meets WP:AUD. I don't think non-profit guidelines are relevant given that the org's hyperlocal activity. Sfgate.com passes AUD but fails SIGCOV. The article's main contents come from a local weekly paper and self published websites and docs of other orgs. Graywalls (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The past couple days I've been pretty busy, but over the weekend my time frees up. Will have a look then, Graywalls. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls - A quick analysis does find the sourcing to be mainly local or primary, which does not bode well for notability. There seems to be a bit of a walled-garden type situation between these articles: Pacific Repertory Theatre, Stephen Moorer, Theater of the Golden Bough, Golden Bough Playhouse, Forest Theater and possibly more articles. Perhaps they should all be merged into either the Carmel or Monterey articles, or into Stephen Moorer (which they all seem to connect to) or should be redirected. I noticed that some of these had been redirected but those redirects were reverted. I will continue to look a little deeper over the weekend - maybe this evening or tomorrow as I'm now taking care of the IRL tasks I procrastinated on getting to last week. Thanks for pointing it out that the article should be analyzed/reviewed (as should the others I mentioned above) per guidelines for NORG and AUD and SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a major U.S. regional theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:

Hi!, I think the best way to address this is to drop your best WP:3SOURCES sources here that you think would completely satisfy WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Great suggestion, that would help us to improve this article. Melchior2006 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I pinged Netherzone a few days ago since I believe they're more familiar with arts related subject matter and what sources are considered significant in this topic area. The sources I'd like to see mentioned are something that meets WP:AUD, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV when put together. It's important to note that a series of articles by the same journalist or same publication counts as one sources. If significant coverage only comes from papers like the Carmel Pine Cone and local tabloid weeklies, that doesn't satisfy WP:AUD. As you know, the more hyper-local the paper is, the more in-depth coverage they'll talk about ultra local matters or else they won't have anything to talk about. So, in-depth coverage in the Carmel Pine Cone about some local affairs is pretty insignificant in the big picture. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I just started to look on Google Books to see if I could find better sources than the hyperlocal ones, although mostly what I found so far are travel and tourism books that mention the theater. I don't really think those are so great, we need something substantial. Then I found this interesting item: [1] See page 243.

Unfortunately because of Google Books preview/snippet view, I can't read all of it. What it says about the Pacific Repertory Theater and its director, Stephen Moorer is sort of interesting. Don't know if it is useful for improving this article, but maybe it belong Stephen Moorer's WP article, just a thot.... Netherzone (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls As a non-profit, it isn't held to same scrutiny as WP:ORG for-profit businesses. This is one of the more significant repertory theaters in the United States, and they produce a season of plays in addition to a well known Shakespeare Festival. If you look in Google books there is quite a lot of coverage on the PRT's annual Shakespeare Festival in Shakespeare scholarly works like the Edinburgh Companion to Shakespeare and the Arts (2011), The Globe Guide to Shakespeare: The Plays, the Productions, the Life (2016), and The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare and Dance (2019) in addition to books on Shakespeare in many non-English published books. Additionally productions staged by the theatre have mentions in scholarly reference works like Encyclopedia of Humor Studies (2014, SAGE), Reimagining Greek Tragedy on the American Stage (2014, University of California Press), Blood on the Stage, 1600 to 1800: Milestone Plays of Murder, Mystery, and Mayhem (2017, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), and Historical Dictionary of African American Theater (2019, Rowman & Littlefield). There are also about a dozen journal articles in JSTOR which include mentions of notable productions in articles published in journals like Shakespeare Quarterly, The Drama Review, and Shakespeare Bulletin, and there is lots of coverage on the playhouse in historical books and tourism books on California such as Best Places: Northern California, 6th Edition. The organization as a business itself was the subject of a case study published in Above the Clouds: A Guide to Trends Changing the Way We Work (2006, Greenleaf Publishing) and has some coverage in Guide to California Foundations (1999, Northern California Grantmakers) and The Search for Social Entrepreneurship (2009, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers). Google scholar has six pages of hits. Further, the company's productions routinely get reviewed in California newspapers which one can easily see in newspapers.com. I would imagine, that if one were to look one could also find articles on the organization itself in those newspaper archives. All together, I think this passes the Nationally well-known local organizations under WP:NONPROFIT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

With a big caveat.

"

Organizations are usually notable if they meet

both

of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization."

which this organization is not. So, I'd think that it falls back to NORG. In your interpretation, an established entity that definitely doesn't pass NORG would become Wiki notable overnight if they were to reorganizes into "non profit" in whatever their local regulatory body. The requirements I mentioned is important, because, we'd end up having WP:NBAND type situation and en.WP would quickly become trashed with 501c3 advert pages. Graywalls (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh Graywalls, that is just not true per the policy language being cited. There is an exception under WP:NONPROFIT policy in the section I bolded Nationally well-known local organizations'. This is an internationally known theatre organization as evidenced by the scholarly literature, and therefore falls under the nonprofit exception rule for local organizations with a local scope that have achieved a national or international reputation. See this language Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the coverage substantial? I think what you're referencing to, which is in "additional consideration" part is pretty similar to what Wikipedia:AUD is. Graywalls (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In places the coverage is in-depth such as in the case study, and in other places it is passing such as a sentence or two about a production in a reference source about a specific play. I think the volume of coverage (as in the number of sources), and the quality of the sources (major theatre reference works by significant international academic publishers both in and outside the United States) indicates together collective notability as well as international significance. The fact that European, Chinese, and South American written and edited publications on Shakespeare (as I said there are Shakespeare books in multiple languages) are mentioning theatre productions by the group, even if its just a few sentences across a range of sources indicates its an important theatre. One doesn't get mentioned at all without being significant in sources like that. As I said, I would imagine newspaper archives would have a lot more. But limiting the source analysis to the best of WP:THREE somewhat misses the point of the source analysis in this case which is broad significance in Shakespeare and theatre studies. FYI, equating this to an WP:NBAND situation seems ridiculous because the vast majority of music groups covered under NBAND are for-profit and likely to remain so. Only large theatre and music organizations like opera companies and orchestras tend to have non-profit status. Frankly, our notability guidelines weren't written with fine arts organizations in mind and we probably could use an WP:SNG for these types of organizations. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

[Left] WP:ABOUTSELF says: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• It does not involve claims about third parties;
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• The article is not based primarily on such sources. Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 lists an impressive array on non-regional sources, but how about some quotes so we can get a sense of the coverage? Reviews of productions would be very helpful, but "honorable mentions", well, that would be too little. Melchior2006 (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the shakier it seems. I researched artistic Stephen Moorer and found no notability beyond the superlocal level. That is also an indicator. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I still would like to see three sources named to show WP:SIGCOV. Basically, I'd like to see several large Walnut slabs to establish notability. Absent this, a dump truck full of small trim pieces make up for the absence of large solid slabs called for. WP:NCORP absolutely apply here. @4meter4:, I feel you should pause expanding the article away when an addition is being disputed, per WP:ONUS. Graywalls (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that current sourcing is insufficient to pass WP:SIGCOV. There are lots of news articles where the company is the primary subject already in the article, and the addition of two case studies and other academic sources shows there is coverage that isn’t just local. I don’t think there is anything more to say. I doubt you would find any support for this being a non-notable topic if you to take it to WP:AFD. If you want to keep pressing this, take it there. But I’m pretty sure it will be a WP:SNOW close as keep.4meter4 (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Simply asking someone someone to pick and lay out three of the significant coverage to anchor down notability makes it easier for editors to evaluate notability. Melchior2006 also brought up valid concerns, but reading the conversations suggests there isn't much discussion going productively to achieve consensus. Graywalls (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There are more than three sources in the article currently with in-depth independent significant coverage of the company. I don’t really feel it necessary to arbitrarily limit the source analysis to three. We use the rule of WP:THREE at AFD as an unofficial measuring stick; generally to discredit articles with a count under three sources with SIGCOV not over it. That practice is an essay anyway and not policy. In this case we should look at the coverage as a whole as SIGCOV indicates we should. I’m done discussing this further here. If you wish to take this to AFD do so.4meter4 (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

I would suggest that "Blood on the Stage, 1600 to 1800" is not significantly focussed on PRT to be listed in the bibliography. It seems to be that is a tangential reference to PRT, valid enough for a footnote, but not for an entry in the article's bibliography. That's why I deleted it; 4meter4 reverted. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 You have fundamentally missed the point of a bibliography section which is to list all book sources being used with inline citations. It has nothing to do with whether or not the book being cited is primarily about a topic. I am using the standard referencing format for WP:Featured Articles that use Template:Sfn style citations. Removing literature in the bibliography that is used within inline citations section is unacceptable and is vandalism.4meter4 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Funny, that's not the way the bibliography works on this featured article: Fancy cancels. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 See for example Rinaldo to which I contributed. Most FA articles use this format. And Fancy cancels is not an FA article. It isn't even GA. It lost its FA status after failing an FA review in 2004. 4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You're mixing things up. In the Rinaldo article, a publication by Schonberg is cited twice in the footnotes, but not listed in the bibliography. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you further on this. You shouldn't be removing book content that has sfn template page citations. Doing so, makes the citations meaningless, and violates WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. If you do this again, I will report you to WP:ANI for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Different FAs and other articles call the "books cited" section at the bottom "Sources" or "Bibliography" or something else. But if it is a list of the books cited in the article, they all *must* be listed there. Otherwise you are deleting the citation for content in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking... Wikipedia article writing is different from college class papers in which you list all works consulted as "bibliography". On en.wiki, essentially, we often often just do so called "works cited" equivalent in academic papers. If we were to do bibliography in the same way as school papers as a matter of regular practice, articles will quickly fill up with ref spams by authors, publishers and authors reps who didn't use sources to research for the article, but used Wikipedia to find places to shoehorn the books/website/journals they want to spam. Graywalls (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Another off-the-mark entry in the bibliography

The company history of Hewlett Packard (Bill & Dave: How Hewlett and Packard Built the World's Greatest Company) should be deleted. When I did so, 4meter4 reverted. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 You have fundamentally missed the point of a bibliography section which is to list all book sources being used with inline citations. It has nothing to do with whether or not the book being cited is primarily about a topic. I am using the standard referencing format for WP:Featured Articles that use Template:Sfn style citations. Removing literature in the bibliography that is used inline citations section is unacceptable and is vandalism.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Different FAs and other articles call the "books cited" section at the bottom "Sources" or "Bibliography" or something else. But if it is a list of the books cited in the article, they all *must* be listed there. Otherwise you are deleting the citation for content in the article. Knowing deletion of WP:RSs would indeed be vandalism. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Contents addition doesn't take priority though. When addition is disputed, it falls on those adding contents to establish consensus, which is per WP:ONUS. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's due. Graywalls (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There’s also a point where arguments like these become WP:Bad faith obstructive WP:POINTY behavior that becomes WP:Disruptive editing. One of the sources being objected to had scholarly coverage of one the company’s theatre productions, and the other had an interview with the company’s director about the PRT’s financing. Nobody acting in good faith could make an WP:ONUS claim here.4meter4 (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

To include these or not

Special:Diff/1254482053. These minute details maybe true, but I don't feel the inclusion is due. Encyclopedia is not an exhaustive report on a company. Graywalls (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain about lack of significant coverage and lack of notability, and then try and exclude significant coverage from the article when it’s found. Trying to exclude an academic case study where the company is the subject seems disingenuous under the circumstances. It makes we question whether you are actually here to improve the article, or you have some other agenda. This is not good faith behavior.4meter4 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What's I and at least one another editor is saying is that these minute details are not "significant" details. Graywalls (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree.4meter4 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I agree we don't agree. You had mentioned earlier I think the volume of coverage (as in the number of sources), and the quality of the sources (major theatre reference works by significant international academic publishers both in and outside the United States) indicates together collective notability as well as international significance.. I fundamentally don't agree that a boat load of minor coverage in quality sources would fill the role of WP:SIGCOV. I question the encyclopedic value of things like "so and so company is one of the biggest donors" "the subject is a member of so and so trade group" and the discussion to cover/not cover anything and everything just because they're in reliable sources is a matter of due weight. I'll wait for other editors to chime in.

@Melchior2006, Netherzone, and Ssilvers: Graywalls (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As a non-profit that operates largely off of donations, I fail to see how its biggest donors are not important to the history of the company. Additionally, the League of Resident Theatres (LORT) is not a “trade group” but a professional theatre organization that places this particular theater within context inside Regional theater in the United States. LORT members are the larger regional theater companies in the United States, and in general only LORT members get recognized by major awards like the Regional Theatre Tony Award. It is a defining feature that separates less notable theatre organizations from notable ones. A strong clue for notability of regional American theatres is if it’s a member of LORT or not. It it is it’s likely notable.4meter4 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Hewlett Packard donations are only significant if they are unusual... unusually high, or because of certain noteworthy projects. But if HP is simply donating regularly, that is part of what big companies do. The biggest problem with this article is finding converage of the PRT as a significant theater above and beyond the local community. One editor claimed that there was widespreach coverage of PRT (its people, its shows, its building, its audience) in major scholarly sources. Let's see them. LORT membership is not enough, that is more of a matter for negotiating employees' benefits, contracts, etc. Example: Just because an actor is in a union certainly does not make him notable. So .... if serious sources are not forthcoming, the ones that were promised to us, I am for a merge. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You are certainly free to argue that, although I think there are already lots of sources in the article and in a competent WP:BEFORE search that indicates that this deserves to be a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's up to consensus and it's not even looking close to being in favor of retaining a standalone article. So, this may need to go for an AfD in the near future. Graywalls (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do. I’m fairly confident this article will survive an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel that providing three best notability establishing sources is a reasonable thing to do. It saves everyone time not having to pore over numerous sources. If they establish notability, everyone can move along. Graywalls (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I know. And I’ve already stated why that approach is not policy based and not beneficial in this case. We don’t need to repeat ourselves. I’m ready for an AFD discussion. I’ve already articulated what I believe will be a winning argument about why this passes both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NONPROFIT policy at WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I see it comparably to "(so and so local credit union) is a member of National Credit Union Administration". Oh and looking at Wells Fargo Bank or Bank of America, what you don't see in lede is "member of FDIC" like "member of LORT" is written in this article's lede. Graywalls (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with that fact being removed from the lede as long as it remains in the body.4meter4 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Even having it in body is of questionable merit if you were to ask me and I say the same to orgs/companies articles that include something rattling off (this company/org is a member of the regiona/national/internanational - coalition/society/organization of somethingsomethingsomething) Graywalls (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Its LORT membership was a point of discussion in the Edinburgh Press source cited in the article. I think subject matter experts should guide content. I gather from the way you are talking on this page that you have little experience or knowledge in this content area. I don’t think you have a competent knowledge set to draw from to determine what is and is not relevant or significant in this topic area based on your comments.4meter4 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I struck my last comment because I think it was uncivil on reflection. Apologies. I was irritable as I am not feeling well and did not sleep much last night. I will try to be calmer and more patient and kind in my responses going forward.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will go ahead and move the LORT business into the body; we can always delete it entirely. @ 4meter4: Please send us those three sources that establish notability. You mentioned them yesterday. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think I need to provide any more sources than those already in the article. There are now multiple books, journal articles, and newspaper articles with significant coverage cited in the article. Use your eyes.4meter4 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4:, I'm not asking you to provide further sources. I'm asking you to pick out three, either from within, or beyond, for the purpose of anchoring down notability so others can skim through and evaluate notability. Graywalls (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already expressed in multiple places on this page why A. That is not useful. B. It's not the best approach to evaluating notability. C. It's not based in policy language. D. It contradicts WP:SIGCOV. E. I won't do it. Please quit asking.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thx 4meter4. We are now ready for the next step. Question, should it be AfD or merge to the relevant article about the region? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks 4meter4 for your work. I agree that the article is notable. You should drop the WP:BLUDGEON. Melchior. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So that means you are for a merge or for keeping it as it is? Consensus seems to be going toward non-notable (as a stand-alone article). Melchior2006 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The[re is no] consensus is to keep [change] the status quo. [<---update in brackets] I am confident that an AfD will fail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Who determined what the consensus was? Did I miss something? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 and Ssilvers I agree with Melchior2006. I don't think we have achieved consensus. It looks like an even split with two supporting the article and two not supporting it. I don't think we can take this further on the talk page. We really just need to get more community engagement to settle this. An AFD is the best next step. Merge proposals don't tend to get many commenters. AFD tends to attract more input, and since the primary issue here is WP:N it probably is the better forum. Merge is often an acceptable WP:ATD at AFD so you could propose that as a potential choice alongside a deletion rationale.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

[left] The only person (other than 4meter4 and the originator) who has contributed significant content to the article might wish to comment: User:GentlemanGhost -- any thoughts? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I just removed a "further reading" entry by 4meter4 which was really misleading. That kind of behavior makes it seem like someone is promoting PRT for questionable reasons. So let me ask 4meter4: are you involved with PRT in any way? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have never been paid to edit wikipedia ever, and I have no connection to PRT or anyone affiliated with it. I hadn't even heard of it until I saw the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre of which I have been an active member for many years. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, Melchior, that is a gross violation of WP:AGF. If you bothered to look even briefly, you would see that 4meter4 is a longstanding and extremely active editor who edits a broad range of articles in the arts from all around the world. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

and that means he can't have any personal connection to PRT? Let's not discourage transparency. Even experienced editors are not always right. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Lol. I haven’t even been to California. I don’t have a LAT subscription so I was basing inclusion off of the snippet paragraph view in google news archive. If it wasn’t a good source, I too can make mistakes.4meter4 (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, Melchoir, you need to reread WP:AGF. Stick to the facts, don't make personal attacks. How's that for consensus? I'm not even against removal of some of the above references which do seem like minutia, but surely we can do that without resorting to odious tactics. Too much of that going around lately. I wouldn't like to see this put up for an AFD, but if that's what we feel is necessary, then we should follow the process. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 06:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to ask if an editor has a NPOV issue. If you can point out anything else in my posting that might seem like a personal attack, I would be grateful for the pointer (seriously). Also, I would welcome a pointer about where I diverged from facts. There were several problems with 4meter4's bibliographical work, and I identified them. That seems ok to me. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It is a gross failure to Assume good faith because nothing in the edits that the editor made demonstrated any POV whatsoever. You attacked them for the addition of an article that *does indeed* mention the subject at hand, even if your judgment is that it does not mention it "significantly". You really, really should apologize to them, but people rarely apologize on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Using the word "attack" here seems a bit far-fetched to me, as does your point about NPOV, b/c listing the Hewlett Packard book as a major source on PRT was downright misleading, and that error was corrected, which proves my point. Other bibliographical moves by a certain experienced editor were also in error. Let's just leave it at that. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it was "misleading" -- it was just a suggestion, and you had ample opportunity to review it and disagree with its inclusion. Calling it "misleading", simply because it was *in your judgment*, not helpful, is provocative and uncivil. What other "moves"? Let's see all of your accusations. Perhaps the "moves" were "in error", in which case, let's fix them, or perhaps they were simply not, in your judgment an improvement to the article. The fact that you call them "moves" suggests some kind of general suspicion against other editors which is antithetical to Wikipedia's principles. I happen to think that you have good editing instincts, but the way you treated 4meter4 was rotten. Again, WP:AGF. BTW, no one can get away with saying "Let's leave it at that", which is the same as "I get the last word" and is, in itself, offensive. You can say, "I will not respond any further here", though people rarely stick to that, so they just look silly to say it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Melchior, If accusing a long-standing editor of a violating a basic tenet of Wikipedia isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is. It's not a remotely neutral thing to say, even phrased as a question. You may as well have asked them if they're an axe murderer. So, now you've had three separate editors tell you that it was out of line. If you're genuinely interested in adjusting your behavior, I would take that into consideration. Rather than make baseless accusations about an editor whom you are having a disagreement with, stick to the merits of your argument. You were doing fine until you started making bad faith assumptions. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 07:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

News coverage parked in "further reading"

This is like "in the media" section with different titling. All these links to news stories not otherwise used for sourcing isn't needed. It's not conventional with companies/organization articles MOS. If these are parked references for editors, they should go in the talk using {{refideas}} Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to adding material from these refs into the body of the article instead, or as refs in a table of productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:, You might have see something like this elsewhere on Wikpedia: Sky is blue even though there's absolutely no need to have all these sources. Putting them instead into "see also" or "further reading" isn't customary either. You don't see it in any reasonably well done articles. If the plan is for use in article editing, main space shouldn't be used as if it's part of the sandbox. The talk page would be a better place for that. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s a rather poor comparison. For one, most of the sources are on productions not currently included in the article and they don’t overlap with each other. They also aren’t verifying a rather inane concept like the sky being blue. Having content with new information is appropriate for a further reading section, as is including reviews of productions staged by the company for readers interested in the topic. Further reading sections like these often get created after AFDs in order to leave a record of usable sources for article improvement. I am not opposed to just leaving them on the talk page if that is the consensus.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If they are about particular productions, let's add them to the productions section. The others can go in history, or wherever they're relevant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviews and articles moved here from article space

• Dayton, Lily (January 15, 2009). "Pacific Repertory Theatre presents the West Coast premiere of "High School Musical"". Monterey Herald. [Now cited in the article]
• Dayton, Lily (April 25, 2012). "Fiddlin" Around: Pacific Repertory Theatre opens its 2012 season with family musical, "Fiddler on the Roof"". Monterey Herald. [Now cited in the article]
• Delsol, Christine (August 2, 2011). "Forest Theater a 'bohemian grove' for Shakespeare fans". San Francisco Gate. [Now cited in the article]
• Hurwitt, Robert (July 17, 2001). "An 'Orchard' with shallow roots / Carmel production short on poignancy". San Francisco Gate. [Now cited in the article]
• Laure, Mark (November 17, 2014). "Theater preview: PacRep revives 'Full Monty' with most of original cast". Monterey Herald. [Now cited in the article]
• Popęda, Agata (August 17, 2023). "They say that all happy families are alike, and the Addams family is the exception that proves the rule". Monterey County Weekly. [Now cited in the article]
• Ryce, Walter (June 7, 2012). "PacRep gives Yasmina Reza's layered God of Carnage the depth it deserves. Fight Within a Fight". Monterey County Weekly. [Now cited in the article]
• Shuler, Barbara Rose (September 11, 2018). "Theater review: PacRep"s "Shrek the Musical" a whimsical, visual treat". Monterey Herald. [Now cited in the article]
• Popęda, Agata (October 27, 2022). "A rift over management at Carmel theater nonprofit PacRep leads to an exodus of board members". Monterey County Weekly. [Now cited in the article]
• Taylor, Dennis L. (November 5, 2020). "PacRep to launch $3 million remodel of Carmel's Golden Bough". Monterey Herald. [Now cited in the article]

Hard scrub

Since discovering the striking similarities of puffery and promotional writing across four articles for this page, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Forest Theater and Golden Bough Playhouse by the same editor(s); I have placed appropriate templates at all four articles. I would strongly advise the editor(s) who continually edit this page and the relative pages to take a break from editing. At present there are several violations that are currently happening: i.e. COI, promotional content, etc. Please understand that most of the content on this page is deemed WP:FLUFF and WP:PROMO. Listing shows, seasons, staffing history, etc. None of which are notable for inclusion. Please take note: the editors in question have concluded their edits, I will be placing an "Under Construction" tag on the page and implementing a very hard scrub. This is not personal; it is strictly for the reason to write a good article at WP. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. I had to quibble with one of these editors when I said a line about replacing a fence on the theatre property (Forest Theater) might not be important enough for an encyclopedia. They were (at the time) of a different opinion. I think the three theaters you mention are important enough for articles, and the quality of the articles is getting better, but the details are just excessive and they look a lot like regional fan writing. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists I think that is a complete misrepresentation of the current state of the PRT article which has been re-sourced to high quality sources and heavily edited in the last two days by multiple wikipedians who are heavily active in theatre wikiprojects. This is WP:POINTY and WP:Disruptive editing in my opinion. I have removed the tags for this reason, because I honestly believe that A. the sourcing issues have been fixed. B. the coi issues have been appropriately dealt with and solved. C. the article is well on its way to be at WP:GA level quality. Indeed if this article weren't currently involved in coi noticeboard dispute, I would have nominated this for GA review.4meter4 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 You should not have removed the tags. They were more than appropriate for this article. With all due respect, I am not sure you know just what a good article on a Theater at WP should actually look like. There are numerous conflicts with this article that do not belong. Sourcing issues have nothing to do with the good, notable content. Just because a newspaper announces, covers or even reviews a production, doesn't mean its notable for inclusion. The COI issues have not been dealt with since the same editors continually edit the same 4 articles with the same puffery / promotional content. That is the very definition of COI. WP:GA does not need the excessive piling on of unnecessary content that this article currently has: In early 2022, the city of Carmel entered into a lease with PacRep for the nonprofit to manage the venue for the next five years, with a five-year renewal option .... The questionable at-hand sources for all of these articles raises valid suspicion for the appropriate tagging of all four articles; including (and especially) this one. What is disruptive is the constant reverting of editors who are trying to fix this article by those who have other motives than writing a simple article on a theater at WP. Do not remove the tags again. This article needs a heavy scrub and an "under construction" tag will be placed very soon. It might be behoove you to look at other WP:GA regional Theater articles listed at WP to better understand what a good article is. Maineartists (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists With all due respect, the editors placing tags have done zero actual work in improving the article, and are now acting from bias because of the alleged coi/walled garden situation. We clearly have a well written theatre article now. I added about 50 sources to this article and spent hours hunting the PROQUEST, JSTOR, EBSCOE, and google books to do it. Ssilvers who is a major leader in theatre wikiprojects has done an excellent job copyediting for encyclopedic WP:TONE. I've been writing on theatre articles on wikipedia for well over and decade and my work speaks for itself. This is now exactly what theatre article should like. FYI, there are three editors here who routingely edit theatre articles and work in opera, musical theatre, and the theatre wikiproject. I think, given this is our normal content area, our volunteer opinions would be given some respect given how long most of us have been contributing to wikipedia in this content area. Suggesting we don't know whar we are talking about and don't know how to write neutrally presented theatre articles in a responsible way is just insulting, particularly when anyone actually bothering to look at the academic literature would see it reflects the material. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I just tweeked some very minor matters and I have to say: 4meter4 has done a lot of hard work on this article. It looks much, much better than it did a couple of days ago. Good work! -- Melchior2006 (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 As I wrote, I would not begin any re-construction on the articles until all edits had ceased. I will not get into an edit war as some editors have displayed over menial content. I cannot discuss with anyone who can look at the section: Notable productions and argue that it is encyclopedic content at WP. Nor can I have a sensible conversation over trite content about staffing issues and directorial notices. I question anyone's track record of "decades" of writing articles on theaters at WP when they compare this article to any other regional / community theater listed at WP. Academic literature aside, (which I am not arguing) historic content is applicable, the endless lists on non-notable productions, non-notable information, etc, etc, etc needs to go. Period. The article already passes WP:GA with the bare minimal historic description (found on all 4 related pages). This is just excessive promotion. Maineartists (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is room for improvemnt in the area of notable productions. Because they're not. All of the sources are regional papers whose critics are not reliable. It is like using college newspaper reviews to establish the notability of a students' drama club production. This part of the article should be trimmed. And, just as an innocent aside regarding all the "experienced editors" involved: The argument from authority is the weakest type of argument. But don't turn around and say I am insulting you. Just saying. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 that just isn't true. The Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle (whose critics cover works nationally), etc. are not local to Carmel. Neither are Playbill, Variety, and American Theatre. Lastly, insinuating that critics can't write fairly on local theatre is ridiculous. That would be like claiming The New York Times critic is unreliable on writing on Broadway. Local criticism, can be harsh. (Some of the Monterey papers were tough on PacRep at times).4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists Who is is edit warring here? Nobody has reverted anyone on content in the article. The only objection was over inappropriate tags, not reversions in content. This is again a misrepresentation of what is happening on this page.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to review all the History Summary for the corresponding articles. Maineartists (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This is what I mean about you not treating this particular article as an individual article, and not appropriately responding to new editors acting in good faith coming in to address coi issues through article improvements.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Not in the least. I am evaluating this article solely on its content. I am assessing certain editors on their edits across corresponding articles. Maineartists (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 does have some strange arguments. NYC as a regional theater scene? Anyway, I took the trouble to look and found that every single reference in this section is from a very regional paper whose critics might not be considered authoritative: In 2009 PacRep presented High School Musical on Stage!. Some other musicals produced by the company include Oliver! (2002), Fiddler on the Roof (2012), The Full Monty (2014), Heathers: The Musical (2016), Shrek the Musical (2018), Chicago (2019), Mary Poppins (2022), and The Addams Family (2023). The company staged the comic opera The Pirates of Penzance by Gilbert and Sullivan in 2015.

In 2020 the second phase of a three million dollar upgrade to the Golden Bough Playhouse was begun. In 2024 the newly renovated playhouse re-opened with a PacRep production of Selina Fillinger's farce POTUS: Or, Behind Every Great Dumbass Are Seven Women Trying to Keep Him Alive. Other 2024 productions included Dolly Parton's musical 9 to 5. and Kate Hamill's stage adaptation of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that establishing notability is not part of the GA criteria, so it's not impossible for a GA article to pass GA, but fail NORG and be validly deleted under that. Graywalls (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Melchior2006 As I wrote at: GBP Talk Page these contributions are lists. The sources only back the claim that they happened. Not why they are notable. This article has been approached as a Theatre "Company" not a Theatre in a historic sense. 4meter4 keeps asking: "I fail to see how listing the productions staged at a theatre is a "resume" (people have resumes; not theatre companies) or irrelevant to the history of a theatre company." That is the problem. Same as staffing and directorial notices. Maineartists (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

My point was that a critic's proximity to a theatre doesn't make them incompetent or unreliable. Independent journalism is independent journalism. Also, I would think the re-opening of a theatre would be notable, even if the coverage is local because that obviously is an important event in the history of PacRep; as is a major renovation of one of their primary performing venues. I agree that many of the productions listed there may not have coverage outside the immediate local area which is why I had many of those sources originally in a "further reading" section which was then removed to the talk page, and then editors there encouraged me to put them into the article. (which was something I wasn't inclined to do). I don't think it would be a great loss to remove/trim heavily those productions from the article, but I do think the sources would be of value to the general reader wanting to know more about the company's performance history. For this reason, local news coverage in a "further reading" section would be valuable in my opinion. We honestly could come to a meeting of the minds here over content without all the un-necessary and bad faith accusations of trying to promote the subject. It's not like I came in with a bunch of UNDUE glowing critical appraisals. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If something is not reliably verifiable, the inclusion is out of question. Verifiability is the absolute minimum requirement. It's never an entitlement to include. When there's a dissent over your desire to include it, it's those wishing to include it that need to do the legwork to gain consensus for inclusion. Not the other way around. I am clearly seeing dissent to some of the contents/trivia/hyper-local contents you're desiring to include. Graywalls (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I just made it clear I was open to removing content sourced to local papers. If you can't respond positively when I am agreeing with your point of view, I don't know how I can can work here. It's too stressful.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 Coverage does not necessitate notable inclusion. You have to find content within the source that warrants notable inclusion. This has not happened. Regardless of where the coverage occurs. Simply finding a source doesn't merit inclusion. We cannot be further from each other in this understanding and agreement. "I do think the sources would be of value to the general reader wanting to know more about the company's performance history ..." This is why WP has External links to link the theatre's website. If - if there is a production (a premiere, for instance) that is notable, not just normal productions within a season, then yes: it can be included. We, as editors, cannot take it upon ourselves to think for WP readers based on how we feel: "I do think the sources would be of value to the general reader wanting to know more about the company's performance history." It has to be based on WP policy and MOS. Please do look at other theatres listed at WP to gauge correctly how they should be structured. Every time I list something that is non-notable in these discussions, you do not address them. For instance, "Kelleher had directed plays in the San Francisco area, including at the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival and Shakespeare at Stinson." The article is about PRT, not Kelleher. This needs to go. Maineartists (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Maineartists I wish you well. I don't want to spend my day working with someone who doesn't want to collaborate in a non-combative civil manner, and who constantly responds with condescending remarks that make it difficult to focus on specific problems in a civil and congenial collaborative way. If you can't raise content issues without getting personal I can't work with you. I'm happy to disccuss specific sources or specific sentences, but not if you are constantly going to infer insults about incompetence and bias or inexperience. That's no way to treat people who are volunteering their time to the project. Nobody is going to enjoy their time here working under that kind of atmosphere.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 Please select the exact policy content found in WP:NEVENT that correlates with sources in this articles. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists, if you haven't seen it yet, the broader COI discussion involving a key editor of these articles. Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Graywalls. I had read the discussion prior to placing a tag on another corresponding page. When questioned: "How do you know?", "Where is your proof?", etc. The telling is in the contributed content that (as I wrote) seems readily available at the fingertips of those editing; which to the non-associated editors, would not come so easily. Not just at these articles, but any at WP. Also, the inclusion of unnecessary, notable by association and "interesting to me" style entries. The fact that the same attention is paid across 4 articles with such heavy praise and notability-by-association is a red light. Maineartists (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I read the COIN thread and looked at the pages. My first question, which goes towards cleanup, is why we are including products of other plays as opposed to just listing original productions? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "products of other plays"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Easy. My fingers and brain do not always sync which seems to be the case here. I meant "productions" of other plays. Local and regional theatre's put on a lot of plays that are already in existence. For instance, Romeo and Juliet has been played to death in theatres. Unless that particular production at that location is notable, I don't think it needs listed. I think more notability can be shown for "original" productions that were created by the theatre. Ones that originated there. Hopefully this makes more sense. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A little more explanation.....when the plays or musicals are listed such as they are here, it gives the impression that notability is inherent because they put on major products. That is not the case. For instance, the page lists Oliver! as a production, but if you go to the page for Oliver!, it only lists 11 locations for major productions of that musical and the Pacific Repertory Theatre is not one of them. Unless the production of Oliver! done by PPT is somehow notable, I don't think it should be listed and in no way be considered for notability purposes. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that we don't need to list every show that they have ever done (hundreds of them), and we don't. But we do need to give the reader an idea of what kinds of shows they do, and this is a pretty representative sample, sourced to reviews that give an idea of what kind of coverage the shows have been receiving. If there was paragraph after paragraph with long lists of productions, I would agree that it was a problem, but there isn't, and so I don't. I think it's a very readable, encyclopedic sample. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers and CNMall41:, I think it's better to find a solid or two and build contents around the source rather than build secondary sources around prose based on primary source. I'm not a fan of local stuff 1, stuff 2,, stuff 3, ... contents. Graywalls (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are both correct in my opinion (for what its worth). I believe that there does need to be some context. However, I also believe we don't just grab a few that we want listed and then find sources that support. If the topic is notable, there should be some in-depth sourcing that talks about plays and musicals that have been performed and the context can be built from those references. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Retiring from this page

This article space has become too combative for me. It's not how I like to spend my time. I am moving on to a different content area as PacRep isn't really something I care enough about to feel its worth being involved in contentious discussions. I'm taking this page off my watchlist. Please don't ping me about content disputes or article changes or even deletion nominations. I' m at the point where I want to be completely uninvolved. I wish you all well. 4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the radical deletions. I hope others who are familiar with theatre-related articles will help out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers above Jack1956 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Level of routine activities

@SchroCat:, so I agree there's nothing "wrong" with local papers. Those things taking place as described isn't being questioned here. I agree with the person who removed it in that I agree we don't need to have things with such granularity. The relevant guideline is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Graywalls (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have returned the material. As it has been there for some time before it was removed recently, you need to get a consensus for removal. There obviously isn’t one at present. - SchroCat (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat:, You actually have it backward. The level of inclusion has been in dispute for a little while in recent times. When it becomes disputed, those wishing to restore it must gain consensus. See WP:ONUS. Keep in mind no consensus reaching discussion took place to a boat load of materials being added into the article. Graywalls (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you see @Melchior2006:'s edit summary, you will see they've had some discussion with another member. So, your addition following removal seems rather unilateral. Graywalls (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

See above, after 4meter4 was bullied off the page, two editors (Ssilvers and Jack1956) both objected to the large scale deletions. There was no consensus to remove the information in the first place. A Bold edit was made to remove it; it was Reverted. Now we Discuss, with the STATUS QUO in place (and per that BRD, please don’t continue to edit war while there’s an open thread in place:wait for a consensus to emerge). There’s nothing backward in the way I have it. - SchroCat (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In a situation like this, it falls on leaving off, until consensus, a general agreement without objection to include is reached. WP:ONUS specifically says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Graywalls (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:STATUS QUO and discuss. - SchroCat (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's an essay, which doesn't overrule WP:ONUS. Also, please define where the "status quo" point of reference is. WP:BRD has a big "optional" on it. I fail to understand how the point of reference you set becomes the "status quo". I'm not pinging people who've already been pinged by you. @Melchior2006, Maineartists, and Star Mississippi:. Star, I tagged you could perhaps chime in on BRD, ONUS and STATUS QUO. Graywalls (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

ONUS is something of a straw man, given the information has been present for a while, which gives it a general but weak consensus that it should remain. Now, putting aside the attempts to throw tangential guidelines at the problem, maybe you could focus on discussing the substantive issue of the text itself? (And I am not sure why you are CANVASSING the opinion of someone who hasn’t been part of the discussion before: that’s something or a red flag). - SchroCat (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are people who have been working on this article all along. Star is an admin, whom I tagged to hopefully comment on ONUS/BRD/Status QUO. Has been present "for a while" is arbitrary. What I'm seeing here is you're adding the contents because you WP:ILIKEIT Graywalls (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You have no idea what I like or don't like, so please can you focus on the content, not the editor. Again, I'll ask if you could focus on the substantive issues and put forward comments on why you want to remove the text. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's on you to convince why all these ultra hyper mega local weekly paper based instances of occurrences need to be included. These are unsubstantial as CNMall41 mentioned in an earlier discussion and even though it might have a place on PRT website or in a book, it's not necessary here. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

About "ONUS/BRD/Status QUO":

• @SchroCat, please read WP:QUO, especially the first sentence: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion" (emphasis in the original). QUO doesn't apply forever; it only applies "during a dispute discussion".
• @4meter4, ONUS is not about "what content is encyclopedic and what isn’t". It's about what to do (i.e., behaviorally) when editors have any kind of dispute over the inclusion of some material. ONUS encompasses even things that we would call personal preferences, such as someone saying there are too many photos, or that the well-written, well-sourced paragraph belongs in a different article.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not care one iota about pointless wikilawyering. It’s a complete waste of my (and everyone’s) very limited time. There’s an open compromise proposal that if far more constructive than this mindless drivel. - SchroCat (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And it's on you to aid in coming to a consensus on what should be here (this is rather basic stuff). Being sourced to a local paper is not a sufficient basis for removal - that's a straw man argument. The sources are reliable, particularly for the information they are supporting and no wild claims (which would require stronger sourcing) are present. "Not necessary" is entirely subjective and I don't agree with it. - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the references. However, I will say that ONUS is not a straw man argument. The length of time something is on a page does not determine when or how ONUS can be cited. If the content is challenged, then the person who seeks to add the information would be the one required to obtain consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, if discussion on the substantive issue could be focused on, rather than straw men and tangential alphabetti spaghetti, then resolution and consensus will be reached sooner rather than later. And let's not have any more editors bullied off the page, as happened to 4meter4 (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, but trying to avoid it happening again. Consensus through stonewalling and bullying people off a page does not lead to a collegiate resolution of matters). - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Be very careful making accusations of bullying. I have made one comment on this thread related to my opinion on the application of ONUS. "Straw man," "tangential aphabetti spaghetti," "stonewalling," "bullying" is not civil. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bullying is hardly civil either, but before you take it personally, note that I said that I was not pointing fingers at anyone. The list of terms you think uncivil is amusing (and misleading), but—more importantly—I'm still not seeing any comments focused on the issue of the text, which is why we're supposed to be having this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to confirm that 4meter4 was very much bullied off this page and from making further (excellent) contributions to the article -- not by you, CNMall. It was disgraceful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If any editor here is accusing me directly of bullying 4meter4 from editing at this article, please do not insinuate further in this thread and simply come out with it. I will be more than happy to defend my above discussion with the now exited editor. I never edited this article while in discussion with the editor and merely argued policy regarding content and sources. Some may not be "pointing fingers" here, but stating that an editor was bullied off this page to gain consensus implies constant conscious behavior backed by motive. Maineartists (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't take anything personally on Wikipedia at this point. Your "not pointing fingers at anyone" disclaimer directly in response to my ONUS comment is similar to a coat check saying "not responsible for damaged or stolen items." I would expect better from an experienced user. As stated, my comment was about ONUS.....YOU took it in a different direction. Now here we are. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Here you are not talking about the content. Any chance we can flip onto that part, given it's why we're here? Comment on the content, not the contributor, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Nah. My comment was about the ONUS argument. I already stated I have no comment on the content. Now we are talking about conduct based on your response, double down, and attempt to dismiss my concern by stating we should focus on content. Yes, we should focus on content and how to reach consensus with that content, which was what my original comment was about. So switching back......ONUS is 100% on you. Feel free to propose what you'd like and build consensus, hopefully in a more civil manner. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"Nah"? Thanks for wasting my time over nothing. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about a theatre company, so we need to give the reader an idea of what kinds of shows this theatre company produces, and the current content presents a representative sample, sourced to reviews in WP:RSs that give an idea of what kind of coverage the company's shows have received. If there were paragraph after paragraph with long lists of productions, I would agree that it was a problem, but there isn't. Compare the Shakespeare Theatre Company I think the article presents a readable, encyclopedic sample of the company's productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers Please reference: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS WP:OTHERCONTENT. Just because an article at WP does something, doesn't cause allowance for another article to do the same. WP base all articles separately on their own merit. Maineartists (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually have a look at OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before advising people to do the same. It’s part of an essay about arguments to avoid when !voting to delete a page, so hardly an appropriate link. - SchroCat (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat It was obviously a mistake. It has now been rectified: WP:OTHERCONTENT. That is the correct link. And the correct argument. Relax. Maineartists (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing obvious about it, thus my comment. Please don't delete things once the comment has been replied to, but strike it through instead (see WP:TALK#REPLIED). I've re-added what was removed to avoid confusing others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

convenience break

@Graywalls just noting I saw your ping. I likely won't have the on wiki time to look into the article and the discussions until later this week, apologies. I would say, if helpful, to focus on coverage that is aligned with N:ORG. Without looking into the specifics here, every local theater company has listings of its events, casting calls, but that's not what makes it notable. What's helpful for the reader is pieces with depth and context. I'll watch the discussion and dig into it when I can. Star Mississippi 13:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

But this isn't a discussion about the notability: there is no dispute on the theatre's notability. All half-decent articles go well beyond basic notability-level information into areas which give a broader picture and explanation about the subject - which is what the information in question is: it's providing examples of the range of shows it stages. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat " ...which is what the information in question is: it's providing examples of the range of shows it stages." What? Just how does listing 18 shows by Shakespeare from 1991-2008 show the "range" of shows it stages? That is merely WP:LISTDONT: "Don't create lists based on trivial criteria." There is no range. Shakespeare is Shakespeare. Second, The Buddy Holly Story, Heathers - The Musical, High School Musical on Stage, The Full Monty, Fiddler on the Roof, etc. Do you realize just how many regional and community theatres put these productions on annually? There is nothing notable about these shows to be listed here. Statements such as this: "In the 2009 season, the first full season under Kelleher's artistic leadership, he directed a 14-member adaptation of Man of La Mancha, the controversial David Hare play ..." is puffery and name association. "Controversial"? Really? According to whom? Stop adding content like this simply based on the premise that you "find it interesting so others will too." It is unnecessary and inconsequential. Last, the question about "notability" is correct: we are not discussing the article's notability; we are discussing the notability of content and whether or not it should be included based on that notability. Please keep that in mind. Second, to dispel the reasoning: "Other articles are this way, so we can do it here." Just because another article is written a certain way with content and style, does not mean this article can or should be written that way. All articles need to be based on their own merit. Maineartists (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What a lot of half-baked suppositions and misleading waffle. Look at my edits (my edits only): where have I added the word "controversial" or anything similar. You're entirely right that the word shouldn't be there, but you're entirely wrong about the reason why it shouldn't (it's because it's WP:editorialising and it's something that shouldn't be in WP's voice). I've removed it, but this is such a minor point that you could have done it yourself if you'd have referenced the right guideline when you did it.

As to your claim that I am 'adding content like this simply based on the premise that you "find it interesting so others will too."': that is just a lie. You have zero knowledge of why I add anything except what I say in the edit summary, and I have not put anything of the sort in the edit summary. The last part of your comment is pointless tangential fluff that has little to do with any edits or comments I've made. - SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:AUDIENCE states: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully." (my emphasis). In this case, to explain this theatre company, which focuses on Shakespeare but also regularly presents musicals and other productions, we give some examples. All of these examples are referenced to reviews or other news/feature articles, which has the added benefit of allowing the reader to see what kind of press coverage the company receives. We need to do this to adequately explain the subject. If your objection is per WP:BALASP, the solution is not to delete this helpful information, but to build up the information in the entry about other aspects of the company towards a better and better quality entry (B-class, GA or FA), so that it is more balanced, but this information is necessary for a reader's understanding of the scope of the company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You will find no argument with this understanding of what Wikipedia is in regards to an encyclopedia. But I do feel, however, that you may be bending the definition toward a description that does not quite fit in how this article is edited. You have yet to precisely answer the question: why is it necessary to list 18 productions of Shakespeare (all sourced from the same quarterly / bulletin) to "explain the subject fully"? and again: why is it necessary to list 8 musicals that are across-the-board, every day community produced musicals found in ever theater in America. How is this, again, "explaining the subject fully"? And this statement: "The company staged the comic opera The Pirates of Penzance by Gilbert and Sullivan in 2015." So? This has no justification to your above defense for "assume readers are reading the article to learn" or "the article needs to explain the subject fully." Toward what end? It is trivia(l) at best. If you could directly answer the above specifically and not umbrella your statement on the article as a whole, that would be most helpful. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't need a sea of excruciating details. Wikipedia, although web only, is an encyclopedia. Not a textbook, or a secondary website of the article subject organization. Graywalls (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Repertoire/production lists are a common feature of entries on theatre companies in published theatre encyclopedias and lexicons. Fundamentally, the assertion that these types of lists are not warranted doesn’t match the article construction format of specialized encyclopedias in this content area. Per WP:5P1 we should model the kind of content we create off of specialized encyclopedias. So yes, this is appropriate and expected content for an encyclopedia entry on a theatre company. Also, not that it matters, but two different Shakespeare journals were used, not one. Additionally, a complete repertoire list is included in Clarkson’s four page long entry on the festival in the reference work on Shakespeare festivals up until 1995. Considering that’s a published theatre reference work akin to a specialized encyclopedia this is published by Bloomsbury Academic, I don’t think a repertoire list in inappropriate. 4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I am only commenting because I was pinged back to this conversation. I respectfully request that I not be pinged here again, because I find conflict too distressing. My two cents on this article and theatre company articles in general encyclopedia wide:

I think incomplete but representative repertoire lists are necessary for providing sufficient scope and context to the activities of a theatre company. They are neither irrelevant or WP:UNDUE in an article about a theatre company and its history. This is exactly the kind of material included in theatre encyclopedias on their entries on theatre organizations. We should model our article construction off of specialized encyclopedias per WP:5P1, and the way they cover topics of this nature. I personally don't think the current article is particularly long or overly detailed. If this were trimmed, and it went up to GA or FA review it would fail for not covering the company's production history across time (as it is I think it already fails to cover the company's early performance history and would consider the article incomplete to the point that it should not pass a GA or FA review). For a company that has historically staged 10-12 shows a year, mentioning one or two productions from a given season that received critical reviews would seem A. appropriate and B. encyclopedic. I think WP:ONUS is not a relevant policy here, because there doesn't appear to be a WP:CONSENSUS that the content is A. irrelevant, B. inappropriate, C. undue, and D. not encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

A good number of us simply could not care less about GA/FA thing. Graywalls (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You might not, but making WP:ONUS claims requires that one proves content is not encyclopedic. GA and FA review has a scope for material that is considered encyclopedic in reviewing theatre related articles. The point here, is that the sort of material that is being argued for removal is exactly the kind of a material that our community supported review processes would require to include to pass a formal peer review/evaluation process at FA/GA that makes quality evaluations about content. An ONUS claim here on content seems fundamentally incompatible with the way theatre articles are evaluated for content quality. That should matter, and substantially invalidates an ONUS claim in this case as simply wrong.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

making WP:ONUS claims requires that one proves content is not encyclopedic according to whom?

ONUS reads: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Please present links to prior discussion or RFC outcome in support of your argument which differs from what ONUS says at face value. Graywalls (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely false. Claiming ONUS does not apply is a fallacy by assertion. It is not a requirement that someone proves ONUS applies. It is up to you to prove content you want added should be added. I really don't understand why this is a discussion point here. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Policies don’t exist in a vacuum, and acting in WP:GOODFAITH as it relates to ONUS would necessitate having reasoning based on encyclopedic content inclusion policy as to why verifiable content should be challenged and removed that is expressed through dialogue on the talk page. When that reasoning hasn’t been provided or discussed, or is not engaged with in a meaningful way then this seems like a potential abuse of process and an act of bad faith; particularly when there are experienced editors not on the same page. From my perspective, there is a certain group editors who came to this page because of a need to deal with a coi editor, and in so doing they have lost perspective on how this article and its content would be treated under normal circumstances. The unwillingness to discuss specific content or sources, or read cited references is an example of that behavior. Normally content decisions and disputes are based in arguments over sourcing text, but in this case it’s not even clear the literature has been read or examined by the critics.4meter4 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Policies don't exist in a vacuum, this I agree. However, we also do not ignore them just because we feel like it. This discussion and the previous one above contains plenty of arguments for why we do not list the large number of plays. Not sure how that isn't discussing in good faith. That aside, ONUS applies. I have not nor do I have immediate plans to remove any content per ONUS, but certainly will not revert anyone who does. In fact, once I get back from a mini-break, I will likely reduce some of the information myself based on sourcing and WEIGHT. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

All articles on Wikipedia should aspire to be FAs. WP:FA says: "Featured articles ... are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." Not all of them will get there, of course, but FA articles are the best articles on Wikipedia, and when we develop articles, we should try to come as close to that aspiration as we can. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls. ONUS is fundamentally about what content is encyclopedic and what isn’t. You can’t make an ONUS claim without making a valid argument as to why the content isn’t encyclopedic. If you don’t have a valid argument as to why the content shouldn’t be included in an encyclopedia then I don’t think the policy is relevant. That’s my point.

Regardless, it’s pretty clear there isn’t community support/consensus for removing the content as multiple editors are expressing support that the content is encyclopedic and relevant to quality coverage of the topic. I suggest that if you want to remove content that you express a reason for doing so in relation to the scope of the topic and the sources in question. That will actually require you to read the source material and consider how to cover performance history (which is essential to the topic because that is what theatre companies do and what makes them encyclopedic) in a sufficiently in-depth way to meet quality standards for content assessment.

Fundamentally, the article needs to cover performance history in order to meet relevant quality assessment standards on content used encyclopedia wide. I think it’s impossible to make a claim that representative examples of individual productions receiving independent reviews in secondary sources are irrelevant to meeting the content goals on the quality assessment scale for this content area. On the contrary, they are essential to article improvement.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You not agreeing with the reasoning does not make the argument invalid. Again, ONUS applies. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for INCLUDING a boat load of routine coverage? I think you're thinking from a highly inclusionist ideology. Graywalls (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

”I think you're thinking from a highly inclusionist ideology”. You seem to be very quick to pigeonhole people. As I’ve asked you before, could you depersonalise your comments and focus on the content, not the editor? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see some actual engagement with the topic area and the sources in relation to the way we assess content for quality. In a content dispute that seems both highly relevant and essential. The fundamental issue in this discussion that concerns me is that I have yet to see a single editor making complaints actually engage with the content in a meaningful way. Graywalls and his like minded editors haven’t actually made any source based critiques, other than to generally dismiss local media sources which to my mind is not policy based. We use local media coverage routinely on Wikipedia to verify content, and just because a source is local doesn’t invalidate its content. I have also not seen any constructive suggestions on how to cover performance history in a sufficiently in-depth way in relation to either content scope or the quality assessment scale; both of which are pertinent to content discussions related to article improvement.4meter4 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Would there be any appetite for a halfway point of not removing any of the productions, but dropping them into footnotes instead? The information (which is all entirely valid) is retained, but this ensures that the text is clear of any 'listy-ness'. While it slightly de-emphasises the individual productions, it has the upside of making the prose stand out from the blue links. My thoughts are along the lines of:

	Status quo	Potential compromise
Body	In 2003 PacRep continued its Royal Blood play series with Part 1 and Part 2 of Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy of plays. That same year the company presented a revival of Euripides' Medea, which was the final production staged by director Joseph Chaikin before his death later that year. Also in 2003, the company revived Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story; a production that it repeated in 2004. In 2008, PacRep premiered Curtain Call by Gary Goldstein, who had won the Hyperion Playwriting Competition; a national competition instituted by PacRep. Some other plays produced by the company include Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman (2006), Yasmina Reza's God of Carnage (2012), and Cyrano de Bergerac (2017). Musicals produced by the company include Oliver! (2002), High School Musical on Stage!, Fiddler on the Roof (2012), The Full Monty (2014), Heathers: The Musical (2016), Shrek the Musical (2018), Chicago (2019), Mary Poppins (2022), and The Addams Family (2023). The company staged the comic opera The Pirates of Penzance by Gilbert and Sullivan in 2015. In 2020 the second phase of a three million dollar upgrade to the Golden Bough Playhouse was begun. In 2024 the newly renovated playhouse re-opened with a PacRep production of Selina Fillinger's farce POTUS: Or, Behind Every Great Dumbass Are Seven Women Trying to Keep Him Alive. Other 2024 productions included the musical 9 to 5 and Kate Hamill's stage adaptation of Sense and Sensibility.	In 2003 PacRep continued its Royal Blood play series with Part 1 and Part 2 of Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy of plays. In addition to Shakespeare, PacRep's dramatic output includes a 2003 revival of Euripides' Medea, which was the final production staged by director Joseph Chaikin before his death later that year. The comany also stages modern works, and in 2008, they premiered Curtain Call by Gary Goldstein, who had won the Hyperion Playwriting Competition; a national competition instituted by PacRep.[FN1] In addition to plays, the company also stages musical works, and in 2015 they staged the comic opera The Pirates of Penzance by Gilbert and Sullivan.[FN2] In 2020 the second phase of a three million dollar upgrade to the Golden Bough Playhouse was begun. In 2024 the newly renovated playhouse re-opened with a PacRep production of Selina Fillinger's farce POTUS: Or, Behind Every Great Dumbass Are Seven Women Trying to Keep Him Alive.[FN3]
Footnote	(No footnote)	[FN1] Some other plays produced by the company include Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman (2006), Yasmina Reza's God of Carnage (2012), and Cyrano de Bergerac (2017). [FN2]Other musicals produced by the company include Oliver! (2002), Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story (2003); a production that it repeated in 2004. High School Musical on Stage!, Fiddler on the Roof (2012), The Full Monty (2014), Heathers: The Musical (2016), Shrek the Musical (2018), Chicago (2019), Mary Poppins (2022), and The Addams Family (2023). [FN3] Other 2024 productions included the musical 9 to 5 and Kate Hamill's stage adaptation of Sense and Sensibility.

Sources

Thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It has still not been established by any editor as to why some of these productions are notable for inclusion. Productions such as Edward III (play) is notable on this page because it was a premiere. If the production received special national recognition for whatever reason: that deserves inclusion. But what on earth does Chicago, The Addams Family and The Full Monty have to do with showing the "range of production" when every single theatre at the local community level produces these shows across America. "Also in 2003, the company revived Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story; a production that it repeated in 2004." - and - "Other 2024 productions included the musical 9 to 5 and Kate Hamill's stage adaptation of Sense and Sensibility." So? Maineartists (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Maineartists As I have pointed out multiple times, repertoire lists are a “routine feature” of published theatre lexicon and encyclopedia entries on theatre companies. This is expected content for an encyclopedia entry on a theatre company supported by WP:5P1] which states we model content off of content specific specialized encyclopedias.4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It has been explained several times. Whether you agree with it or not is another matter, but it has been explained multiple times. - SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat, I don't mind most of that, but I would move a couple of the musicals back into the main text, because Pirates does not show the company's range of musicals. I would add back: Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story (2003), Fiddler on the Roof (2012), Heathers: The Musical (2016) and The Addams Family (2023). On the other hand, I don't see any real reason to do it, unless it is a compromise that some of the objectors think is helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that we can show more than just Pirates to ensure a range of works is clear, I'm not sure that adding four other 'standard' musicals demonstrates that. Maybe adding one or two to demonstrate range and retaining the others in the footnote would be a way forward? - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. You both are skirting the issue that has been put forth. I am in no way arguing about "repertoire lists" as expected content. I cannot see how one can read what I wrote and answer in such a manner. I specifically asked the question: "how are the productions that were chosen notable for inclusion."? You are arguing a point that does not need arguing. We are in agreement re: lists at WP. Now. Would you please address the issue at hand? Why is The Addams Family, Heathers - The Musical, Chicago, etc, etc, etc notable for inclusion? It has nothing to do with lists in encyclopedias. BTW, you keep using WP:5P1] as a defense, 4meter4. Nowhere does it say in WP:5P1] that "production lists are expected content for an encyclopedia entry on a theatre company". No where. You are once again bending the policy to make it fit your own personal definition. It only states, quote: "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." That's all. Maineartists (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not meaning this is an offensive way, so please don’t take it that way, but I think fundamentally you are WP:Wikilawyering and fundamentally missing the spirit of WP:5P1. Clarkson has a complete list of every single production staged by PacRep at their Shakespeare Festival in her entry on the festival in a specialized encyclopedia on Shakespeare Festivals. The fact that it ends in 1995 is only because that was when that reference work was published. Repertoire lists are sometimes given in entirety and sometimes in part depending on the encyclopedia and lexicon. In this case there is fundamentally a precedent for making a list encompassing every single work ever staged by the company because that is what one encyclopedia entry did on its Shakespeare Festival. There is also a precedent for limiting what we feature, because that is what some do. The main thing that limited repertoire lists do is feature works across time (encompassing the entire span of the company’s history), and as a representation of the company’s repertoire variety. The problem to limiting the list to the few productions of more significant importance to theatre history, is that is doesn’t accurately represent the variety of kinds of productions the company has staged. A good list will do that, and for that reason some mention of other activities that of less importance is necessary in order to present a balanced picture of the company as a whole. This means we will need to include some more routine kinds of shows in order to represent the company in a WP:DUE fashion.4meter4 (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Likewise: all due respect and no offense, you really need to stop referring to outside theatre encyclopedias. This is WP. Second, sure: list a representation that spans the history of the theater. But that never seems to be enough here. It is perfectly representational to say: "Some of the Shakespeare plays staged at CSF between 1999 and 2008 were Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, and Comedy of Errors. But instead, there has to be 18 plays listed. For what reason? Seriously. Setting aside the argument: "theatre encyclopedias and lexicons do it ..." The "range" is Shakespeare itself. Likewise, there is no range being shown in listing 8 musicals. It's musical theater. You can easily list 3 and convey "range". What I entirely do not agree there is any merit or need for inclusion are these: "Also in 2003, the company revived Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story; a production that it repeated in 2004", "Other 2024 productions included the musical 9 to 5 and Kate Hamill's stage adaptation of Sense and Sensibility." These are tag-alongs that are unnecessary and inconsequential. Maineartists (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we are at an impasse. I think I have articulated a well reasoned policy based rationale for why this content is encyclopedic. All I can say, is that chronological scope matters, and providing coverage of repertoire across time is necessary on an article on a theatre company. A list of three productions doesn’t provide coverage across time, and to my mind provides an incomplete picture of the company which downgrades the article’s quality on the content assessment scale. Additionally, musical theatre is not all the same and there is a great deal of variety in rep within that genre; something that a set of three shows cannot accurately reflect. There is a big difference in staging a 19th century operetta, versus a 1930s jazz based work, versus a 1990s juke box musical, versus a 1970s rock opera, versus a 1950s classic book musical, versus a 21st century franchise musical, etc. All of those require different skill sets and artistic aesthetics.

As for this comment: "You really need to stop referring to outside theatre encyclopedias. This is WP. ." Yes this is wikipedia, and you need to step back and re-read our fundamental Wikipedia:Five pillars which are the foundation of all policies that underwrite all policy pages. Wp:5P1 isn't something we can casually dismiss; it's a core overarching principle that guides everything we do on wikipedia. We cover content in specialized encyclopedias as part of pillar one. That's non-negotiable, and is written into pillar one as part of our founding goal on gathering the sum of all human knowledge into a single place. We also model our coverage off of published encyclopedias and specialized encyclopedias as a part of pillar one. That's also non-negotiable. If that bothers you, than you have completely lost perspective on what wikipedia is fundamentally at its foundational core.4meter4 (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would expect an article on a theatre to list some of the productions staged, just as I would expect to find films and plays in an actor's biography. I'm not sure why this is such a point of contention to a very small number of people. We have a compromise solution in front of us that drops the majority of those productions away from the main text (leaving a couple for context) and the rest into footnotes. All this is within the common practice of similar articles and within various guidelines and policies. But all I'm seeing is continued stonewalling and wikilawyering and I'm yet to understand why there is such a bone of contention about something that is quite commonplace, both on WP and in other encyclopaedias.
  There is also far too much speaking past people without pausing to think about anything except 'winning' tangential and meaningless mini-disputes (with the endless demands about ONUS being one example). Footnotes are excellent for containing a number of examples - the information is there for the reader (who is possibly there to find just this sort of information), while keeping the text clear and easy to read). Please can people focus on the important parts of providing content for readers, and much less on trying to score points on micro points of pointless wiki policies: the readers won't give a fuck either way about ONUS, but they will care about whether we are providing them with a good reflection of the informative material for them to read and understand. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not so sold on this compromise as production lists are often included in prose passages in theatre encyclopedias and lexicons, or within a bulleted list of productions. Either would be preferable over burying them in the footnotes. It’s disturbing to me that generally normal content for an encyclopedia entry on a theatre company is being challenged in this manner. Regardless, if it helps reach a CONSENUS I could reluctantly live with it as a not ideal compromise. We’ll see what others have to say. At this point, I am going to once again withdraw because I really don’t want to spend my time volunteering on Wikipedia arguing over content. If content gets cut, it get cut. It isn’t the end of the world.4meter4 (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I quite agree that leaving the information in the body would be the far better course of action—in line with policies, guidelines and common practice on and off WP—but some people are unhappy with it and this is a possible compromise that at least retains the information that should be on the page somewhere, even if not ideally placed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect/delete? five separate Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA articles

Four that are subject to NORG or NGEO depending and one BLP. All these in a township of 3,100 in the U.S. State of California. I feel like some could be merged and re-directed into one another. The first five were all created by an editor with strong professional COI in this topic area.

• Pacific Repertory Theatre company
• Golden Bough Playhouse
• Forest Theater
• Theatre of the Golden Bough
• Stephen Moorer

Somewhat related, but potentially non-notable (different creator)

• Edward G. Kuster

Graywalls (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would have no strong objection to merging the two Golden Bough articles (they are not the same theatre, but related enough, I suppose), but I oppose merging any of the other articles. I have removed the redundant/irrlevant parts of the heading. Please keep headings concise and neutral. This had been going on for a long time, so let's talk about the content, not the editors. Who started the article in ancient history is irrelevant now that the article is being reviewed carefully. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I do have a strong objection to the recently re-introduced contents into Edward G. Kuster article from the last stable version. Graywalls (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

After I spent several hours to review and revise the Edward G. Kuster article, restoring key information, Greywalls simply reverted my edits leaving this ungrammatical version that lacks many important refs and an understandable timeline. Then he suggests it is "potentially non-notable", but that is because of the destruction that was done on it. See WP:PRESERVE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree to disagree on what you call "major improvement", that I call undoing the careful trimming by other editors. Graywalls (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Careful trimming? Agree to disagree, and I am quite certain that, if you have read it, you don't believe what you are saying. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just made my first substantial edit on this page; and I did "carefully" trim. I worked three days on it off-site. I took into careful consideration the sources, poor grammar, sentence structure, filler content, non-associated facts, outdated links that supported incorrect claims, etc; and I wonder whether or not WP:OWN will once again quickly reveal itself toward a rationale, plausible, and constructive edit session. We shall see. Maineartists (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

FFS, why do you think it acceptable to try and smear people with idiotic accusations of OWN? There's a content dispute, that's all: keep your nasty and uncivil little accusations to yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm. 47 seconds from my original edit to yours. I wasn't being nasty or uncivil to anyone. But it is telling who was riled by my umbrella observation. Cheers! BTW - what does FFS mean? Maineartists (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"I wasn't being nasty or uncivil to anyone" is a lie, as everyone can see. And 47 seconds?? Another lie: it doesn't matter the time gap between the two edits, but it was over thirty minutes, as anyone who looks at the datestamps can clearly see. Why you thought it was a good move to insult people just for having a different opinion to you, nobody knows, but knock it off before I drop you into ANI for it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: You are indeed correct, SchroCat. I misread the minutes as second. My apologies. Maineartists (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If WP:OWN lands me at ANI, I welcome your nomination. BTW wasn't it you that accused me of "bullying" someone off a page? "... knock it off before I drop you into ANI" is a pretty strong threat, I believe. Maineartists (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Another blatant falsehood: I did not accuse you of anything (if you read it properly you will see your name is nowhere near my comment, nor do I intimate, hint or suggest it could be you. And telling someone not to be uncivil and to stop throwing round accusations of OWNership isn't bullying - it's an attempt to ensure that person is aware that breaching WP:CIVIL has repercussions. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow. OK. There were only 2 editors in an active discussion with 4meter4 in the above section Hard scrub when they wrote they were "retiring from this page." Graywall and myself; and I'm pretty sure you were not referring to them when CNMall41 called you out for the accusation; even though after making the claim you wrote: "I was not pointing fingers at anyone." Ssilvers confirmed: "Just a note to confirm that 4meter4 was very much bullied off this page and from making further (excellent) contributions to the article -- not by you." That directly implies someone - just not CNMALL41. If you want to stand behind your statement; yet hide behind the ownership of the accusation, that's your perogative. If you can say: "I was not pointing fingers at anyone" and make such a claim of bullying someone off a page with out "repercussions"; then I can certainly place an open WP:OWN and not be accused of "bullying". Funny, isn't it? You using the same word ... again? Almost a ... coincidence, wouldn't you say? Maineartists (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are going on about, despite further falsehoods, and I care even less. I suggest you stop digging and in future comment on the content, not other editors. It's not the first time I have had to make this request on this page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thought as much. As a good friend used to say: "Consider the source". Cheers! Maineartists (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

what a misguided load of claptrap Special:Diff/1257312991. Certainly unnecessary less than civil commentary. Graywalls (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I was commenting on text, not an individual, and it was complete nonsense. But if you think that trying to stir the pot by quoting from an entirely different page, that's up to you. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw this group of articles via a thread elsewhere and took a look. May I suggest a compromise.....merge the three facility articles into the company article and then get rid of all of the top level tags on those 4 and the folks currently active agree to not challenge wp:notability on the resultant article. Seems like that would be the best approach to coverage. North8000 (North8000) 15:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, North8000 Thanks for this. I had suggested a merge here: [2]. I suppose it really doesn't matter which or to where merges are carried out, since my first attention that brought me here was the fact that there was just so much similar content saturated across 4 articles, (with loads of photos!) displaying the same information: FT, PRT, CBTS, GB. I still feel that one article can contain all 4 if each are trimmed down to the basic necessary information. Like a football game, if you take away all the commentary, endless commercials, time-outs, replays, etc; you're only left with 9 minutes of actual play. LOL. Most of the content for these articles could be represented with a few sections combined. I would highly support a merge. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Who created should not matter, however it should be considered that they were all created by someone with a great deal of vested interest in the prominence and success of the PRT's enterprise. Graywalls (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that the end result matters more. Arguably, having 4 articles covering what arguably would be more appropriately covered in one article could be the biggest result of what is alleged; the idea I threw out there would solve that. Also dealing with one article instead of 4 would allow focus for editors to fix any other issues. The other side of the compromise is to put the issues to bed (with the currently involved editors) regarding the top level tags and questioning notability on the resultant merged article. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I can see (although I have not dug into all three articles in any great depth, just this one), these all pass WP:GNG in their own right, so standalone articles seem proportionate. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, North8000; and support such a merge as it is standard practice at WP to merge stand alone articles that pass WP:GNG and cover the same subjects, content and information into one for easier access to its readers. It would also solve a lot of current problems and circular discussion that seem to be going nowhere due to the situation at hand: "This page is not about [other page]." Thanks again for your outside neutral eye perspective. Maineartists (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not standard practice at all; they don't cover the same subject; there are very few problems remaining and those that are can be addressed if people approach the points constructively, which is something that has been sadly absent up to this point.

I just don't understand the negativity expressed by some people over a small number of articles, all of which pass GNG. They have been cleaned and much of the fluff taken out, then expanded by use of solid reliable sources to give a better view of the theatres, all of which benefit the readers. What on earth is the problem? - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I just parachuted in and took a quick look and floated that bundle as a compromise. Note that the bundle includes removal of the top level tags and that the involved folks no longer pursing them or wp:notability on the merged article. I don't claim that any particular article shouldn't exist. I could take a deeper look if people wish. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Merging these entities would not be helpful. PacRep is a theatre company that uses three venues part of each year; it currently also operates two of these theatres, but this has not been true for the bulk of their history, and you will see, if you look deeper, that it is only doing so because the city had failed to properly maintain them. The Golden Bough name has been applied to three different theaters at two different sites in Carmel, the first two of which burned down, and the current one wasn't established until decades after the first one burned down. The current one has tenants other than PacRep. The Forest Theater is another historic theatre that has nothing to do with the other and also has other tenants besides PacRep. So, when you read about them, you will see that they are independent topics. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Found this discussion

It was not announced, but posting it for information. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Should_WP_articles_aspire_to_meet_the_FA_criteria? Graywalls (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Contested content

Ssilvers You seem to be under the impression that only your content should remain based on the following: "... which any reader of this article would want to know." [3] I am here to write a good WP article that follows MOS and WP policy. Not try and project my own personal interests and feelings onto potential readers that may or may not even exist. The seating capacity of other theaters is irrelevant to this page. If (as you say) this is something that "any reader of this article would want to know", they can click on the inline WP article link that will bring them directly to that page where they can learn everything about that subject (including seating capacity) and more. That is why we link article pages. Seating capacity is superfluous and inconsequential. We cannot contribute content based on what we "think" or "believe" any reader of this article would want to know. That is why we follow MOS - not our feelings. Last, you wrote in the History Summary: "If you are not interested in this article, you might want to edit articles with subject matter that interests you." One does not need to hold an interest to write / edit a good article at WP; and having an interest or not doesn't cloud one's judgment that seating capacity for other theaters on this page is non-essential filler. BTW, are you actually inviting me to leave? [4] Ironic. Maineartists (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This theatre company uses three theatres. These are not "other theaters", they are the theatres that PacRep performs at. The sizes of the theatres, and whether they are indoor or outdoor spaces, would be important information to anyone who wants to understand the operations of the company. And it only takes up seven short words in the Lead. I suggest that it be reinstated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This article (and it's conjoined articles) are filled with "seven short words". As I wrote very early on: enough is never enough; and your idea of "improving an article" is adding more and more and more content that you feel is "important information to anyone who wants to understand the operations of the company." Seating capacity reveals absolutely nothing about a theater's operation. I have sat in theaters that had 100 seats and were filled and 1000 seats that were empty. Your reasoning to include fails. But I am glad you agree: they are only "seven short words"; and that you see this for what it is. Maineartists (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTADIRECTORY #6 maybe applicable where we should avoid things like OFFICE/STORE LOCATIONS... anywhere in the article, let alone the freaking lede. Absolutely oppose re-introduction of this content per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. and WP:NOTAWEBHOST Graywalls (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

NOTAWEBHOST? Scraping the bottom of a very desperate barrel now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Things like details about individual store locations and exhibit venues, number of tables and chairs belong on business/store website, not encyclopedia. PRT is a super hyper local theatre of a township of 3,100. Thea mount of Wikipedia articles devoted to all things Carmel-by-the-Sea is simply disproportionate. Graywalls (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's notable enough for a standalone article, whether it is "super hyper local" (you use your hyperbole) or not. Most things are, in themselves, "super hyper local", but that's not against guidelines or policies and is not, in itself, a bad thing. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The way citations were provided for seat capacity raises an alarm as potential notability masking, especially given that some of the other editor(s) weren't willing to cooperative with providing three best sources for anchoring notability. When three sources can't be picked out to establish notability, that's a sign of lacking WP:SIGCOV. Graywalls (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"When three sources can't be picked out to establish notability, that's a sign of lacking WP:SIGCOV": you're just making stuff up now. It's fairly clear from the sources present in the article that this theatre passes WP:GNG: that's what it has to do to justify an article, so we're way past that point now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ummm no. Many of those sources are not readily accessible and hard to evaluate just how significant of the coverage they offer. That's why I asked for three sources named to establish notability and tracking down all the sources, then going through dozen and dozens of souces would be impossibly time consuming. All I'm getting is "trust me, it's notable". Graywalls (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Just because you are unable to access a source doesn't mean either that the source is not reliable or suitable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This resistance stalls the process by frustration. So, if it was to go to AfD, being drowned in a hundred sources of unknown SIGCOV makes it difficult to figure out, thus stalling the deletion process. Asking three sources for the purpose of establishing notability is a reasonable request allowing involved parties to evaluate notability fairly quickly.

You are asserting it's notable. So, ok, pick any three sources that supports notability. Seems reasonable to me.

Say, featured article in Times or People magazine, a piece devoted to this place in NYT, or Seattle Times. That's generally enough to quickly look and say notable vs not. Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no resistance on my part, but as there has been no collegial approach in trying to develop the article, I am not minded to dig out particular sources for you. They are all listed in one section, so help yourself to them - feel free to access as many as you with or to ask (as it says at WP:SOURCEACCESS) at the WP library for people to help. It's too late to think something is a reasonable request, given the unreasonable approach taken so far in discussions. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There's not been cooperation from the editor who did a massive source dump (in quantity, not necessarily in depth) and they weren't cooperative to the request to list three out of the sources in use that establishes notability. If this goes to AfD, having that many sources does become a barrier to deletion of even non-notable places simply out of work load needed to comb through the sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

And you're still making up a process that isn't part of the community approach to these matters. I don't know why you're so scared of having this article, despite adequate reliable sourcing; it's all very odd. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

[Left] BTW, G, you keep saying that Carmel is just a tiny, unimportant town, but the more I look into it, the more I understand that is was/is an important are for artists and the arts. The number of notable people who are associated with the town is astonishing, and these theatres are important in the history of West Coast culture. Quantifying (in 7 words!) the three venues that PacRep uses is not like including lengthy discussions in the Walmart or McDonalds article of all their locations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet, Walmart locations often do get considerable coverage in the host location. Graywalls (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Golden Bough

OK, having reviewed the two articles, I am prepared to merge Theatre of the Golden Bough with Golden Bough Playhouse. If everyone agrees, let's go to the two articles, note that we all agree on the merge, and I would be happy to do the merge. It may take me a couple of days, but if everyone is patient for a couple days (no more than 3), I'll do my best to merge them, eliminate redundancies and streamline text. Then others can review and weigh in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the two articles should be merged, which is what I started to do back in August before the disruption and drama began including flagrant accusations that I and others were "deleting all the Carmel articles" and similar claims like "vendettas" and such. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No-one has accused you of those things on this page (in fact, it doesn't look like anyone has ever used the phrase "deleting all the Carmel articles"), so let's just focus on the matters in hand on this page shall we? - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way. Looking at the two articles, the question comes to mind......are these articles about the facilities, or the theater operation which operated at those two facilities? Or some blending of the two? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Both are about theatre facilities in Carmel, California, but two different sites/locations are involved. The Theatre of the Golden Bough was owned by Edward G. Kuster and burned down in 1935. The Golden Bough Playhouse was built by Kuster in 1949, burned almost immediately, and a new theatre was built in 1952. Kuster died in 1961. It is currently owned by Pacific Repertory Theatre, which purchased it from United Artists Theaters in 1994. More than one theatre company has performed at each theatre, and other organizations have also used the theatres for various activities. The purpose of the merge is to make the chronology and relationships clearer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the merger of the two 'Golden Bough' articles above. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)