Talk:The Seagull (theatre)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suffolk task force.

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

a quick google news search shows (protip- select "all dates") shows quite a bit of news references.. There is probably enough info to work with to de-prod riffic (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, enough to make a PROD unsuitable, take to AfD if still concerned.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'The Seagull' - 'theatre'?

Since relaunching after the threat of closure, it has been branded 'The Seagull' as opposed to 'The Seagull Theatre' (see website http://www.theseagull.co.uk/). I propose a move of this article to 'The Seagull', with 'The Seagull Theatre' redirecting. Comments? a_boardley (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move made a_boardley (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also says Welcome to The Seagull Theatre. (?)

Not CSD

I object to the proposed speedy deletion, so have altered to AfD as it seems a reasonable article apart from lack of references and categories; both fixable. So I do not agree with deletion, but have put it up for discussion. I notice that there have been a lot of edits to the article!! Re the title, I think “The Seagull (theatre)” is OK as indicating that the article is about a theatre called The Seagull, not the play The Seagull (which already uses the proposed name); it is not called “The Seagull Theatre” which supposes that Theatre is in the official title. Hugo999 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending this to AfD Hugo999. I think it's ended up with a generally better article than we had before and, hopefully, some sort of consensus on the sorts of things that need to be here. And thanks, also, to everyone who's worked on it over the last week or so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Artical Being Improved

This artical could be deleted but it can be improved. So i will do somethings to improve it. As can be done according to Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Please do not change my improvements to this artical as it can help prevent it from bing deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcover21 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs reliable citations to keep it, not a list of people who might have one day been there. Otherwise that'd make my house notable! Which it isn't. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the list and put the detail in the body of the article with the refs. I think some of the information might be usable as a set of citations to support the range of material produced at the theatre. The Times article about Titmuss is difficult to see if you've viewed more than 1 (I think) Times articles in a day unfortunately, which is a shame as it's clearly national press. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow the people may have only been there for a day it was still a big event in the seagulls history.

by the way abi titmuss in macbeth ran at the seagull for 2 weeks wich is longer than a day. It was also featured in The Daily Mail, The Mirror, Daily Star, BBC News, The Telegragh, Now Magazine, The Times. Which are allot of national news papers i will add them as a matter of interest such as you still kept The Times artical.Darkcover21 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, what I meant is that you can't *view* the article if you've looked at too many Times articles in a 24 hour period (I think - it's to do with Murdoch's paywall). I've moved the ref to Titmuss higher up the article - it doesn't really belong in History! One or two more notable productions might be useful to have in there - I've rmv some of the ref btw to feature the more in depth ones. Good job finding them (but watch the random Capital Letters :-) )Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll offer detailed explanations for the changes I'm making - April 16th:

I couldn't find any evidence of it's previous name as the Lowestoft Theatre Company. It's former use name doesn't need to be in the infobox
I think the production line in the infobox *must* only refer to the current production
I've tidied up the other acts bit
an "auditorium seating 108" describes what the auditorium does - it seats 108 people. This is better English than the other way around. Trust me on this OK - it's right :-)
toilets and a foyer really are irrelevant. I can cite the name of dance studio from the EDP if you want me to.
Blizzard is not named in any of the sources afaik - this becomes living persons bio area again. I've said before that it would be nice to get him in there somewhere as I think he had some sort of role in the whole thing, but I don't think it was as an involvement in the trust - not as far as I can source anyway. If we can source it - and I may have missed it btw so please feel free to point it out to me - then let's get it in there.

I think that's an accurate, point by point summary. I could be wrong about the infobox stuff, but I think that's the way it plays.

I take it that the stage in theatre is a similar senario as foyer and toilets irelevant. I will see if i can find any referances for bob blizzard so we can add him to artical. I would also like to add one last mention of a notable performace that was in 2011 by singer - songwriter Jez Lowe which can be referanced from Lowestoft Journal.(Darkcover21 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Lowe makes sense - try to make sure the ref isn't just a puff piece for the theatre though. An EDP ref is generally better than a Jorunal one imo. As far as the stage goes, yes I would agree in general, unless there's anything particularly notable about it - say it's huge or small or something. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry no edp referances but lowestoft journal one and couple of others should do. trying to find one for bob blizzard. plus other notable shows and acts added with referances. (Darkcover21 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

New things added

Jez Lowe added along with bob blizzard and a minister as well as other notable performances that show type of things that go on at theatre. These should not be removed. (Darkcover21 (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]