Talk:History of theaters in Chehalis, Washington

Submitting draft for review!

Hey there draft reviewers!

Though I have user rights to publish directly to main space, due to the size of this potential new article, I wanted a review first to make sure it passes muster. I originally intended this information to be located at the Chehalis Theater page, but it soon became too large for a section, must less a subsection, of theater history there. It was deleted mere minutes before I was going to copy and spinoff...just disclosing in case!

The article does rely on local sourcing, which of course is reputable, but there is a decent amount of non-local refs. Small towns, especially from back in those (and to be honest, not much different today!) are really the only reliable sources for a smaller topic such as this. I have done my exhaustive best to find a variety of sources, and I believe this is the maximum possible. That being said, I do believe strongly in the essay, WP:LOCAL, and urge reviewers to keep that in mind. I believe this topic to be notable in combination, though admitting each theater on it's own may not have enough refs to garner an individual article.

If you have any concerns or questions, please contact me.

Happy reviewing!

Shortiefourten (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Shortiefourten. This is clearly a mammoth effort. I personally don't have any concerns about reliability of local sourcing. However, I do have concerns on the basis of WP:NOT. Could you try to explain how this article interacts with WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I understand that WP:NOTPAPER applies, but this is a relatively niche topic, from what I can say; does it deserve such an exhaustive treatment?

My other concern is WP:ORIGINALSYNTHESIS. It appears to me that you have created here what is, likely, an original survey of history of theatres in Chehalis, Washington, which is itself is an admirable work, however, I am not able to find a single WP:RS that covers the history of theatres in Chehalis, Washington as a topic holistically. This makes me question whether the topic is even notable. Melmann 20:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Melmann!

Note : this got long. My apologies. WP:WALLOFTEXT has been pointed out to me a few times, but ask my husband...it didn't take.

Thanks for reaching out...I knew this potential article would be a tough one to get passed (concerns were based on size and local sourcing) which is why I submitted for review rather than wholly sending it to main space. Let's see if I can answer some of your concerns. (Keep in mind I write all of this with a smile...no attacks or judgments or doubting you at all, Melmann! I'm overwhelmingly pleased the draft is being looked at and if I can help in any way to have it see the light, then let's do this!)

In addition to my original Talk page message above, I based this topic and its validity on a vast variety of articles, even GA's, that discuss an overall cultural/artistic history of a location (basically any big U.S. city article...and sure, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST), I found the HOTINCW article deserving under that observation and guidance. Had Chehalis been the size of Chicago or Miami, RS refs would've been easy to come by. The hunt was fun and the final product told an historical story I felt worthy, and certainly necessary. History gets lost...but it doesn't have to!

I'll start with the worries over NOT, NOTDIRECTORY, and INDISCRIMINATE - it's been beaten to death, and you and I can both agree, not everything needs an article. For me, though, the purpose was about the history of theaters in Chehalis as a whole, showcasing an historical approach, successes and failures, over almost 140 years. Granted, this ain't London and all it's theatrical history, much less New York City or some other big U.S. city, but I've long been an editor who believes that smaller city/town USA gets the short shrift and because of that, their histories forgotten because they cannot compete via RS and subsequent notability. If I write about each theater more simply, I leave out context but also cheapen the importance. Each section becomes less valuable, therefore, the article provides little.

Each theater/film house listed existed and I'm 99.8% certain that was all of them. Outside of the Vaudette, I do go into details and that's based on the numerous other theater/movie venue articles out there that, on average, tend to focus on stage/screen sizes, occupancy, first film/last film shown, when it was built, when it was lost in a fire, important events held, and the occasional story for timeline/humor/overview context. I mean, the owners of the Brunswig and Geissler get into a face-punching match while the latter's opera house is on fire?! No doubt some info could be trimmed, but as a detailed-oriented reader and writer, someone else is gonna have to do it! I grant you that - it is a niche topic and exhaustive - but I see the page as a part of a small city's history, slowly being forgotten. Should Wikipedia take the lead and have it remembered, or do we wait for some book or large article that encompassed all of it be written first?

As for SYTHN (and WP:SYNTHNOT) and the connection to WP:OR, I find myself a bit confused but not attacked...I can see your concerns so no hurt feelings from this side of the keyboard. True, after all my source searching, there just is not a book or magazine that goes into specific depth about theater history in Chehalis. Try as I might, found nothing, outside of Chehalis history books that make mentions of certain theaters. However, there's a few articles sourced on the page that do talk about the topic in a boarder scope. I did not in any form take from one source to complete another (though some to backup or flesh out the claims of another - standard practice). And yes, while the combination of sources allow for the topic to be written, I don't find that as a synthesized approach. I'm not aware of any requirement that a source discussing/combining the overall topic is necessary for a page to come into existence, but I understand your concerns that the article is comprehensive based only on the combined story, rather than a source(s) that specifically discusses the topic. Which is why I created the article the way I did - a combined approach on a specific topic about a specific place - using an overall approach of sourcing to tell the story. (As an aside, I know there's plenty of editors who don't see Wikipedia as telling a story, but for me, history is a story!) Since everything written is backed up by sourcing, there's no OR, but is the overall article an OR because a combo of refs are used to tell the story? I can see the viewpoint, but isn't that how we write any article?

Melmann, I can only tell you that I found the topic to be of great interest, the sourcing vast (but, again, mostly local, as it often is for semi-rural to rural areas in the U.S.) and overall, the history of theaters is notable. While I could argue a movie house or two may be notable on their own, I found the combination of the history of theaters in Chehalis to be more so and therefore created a single page.

No intent to circumvent any rules or regs, or have an article slip by or ignore what Wiki is supposed to be, much less make any approving editor's life difficult! The effort was time-consuming and I appreciate your compliments. I would not fight a conversion to a list article, or some spun-off into their own pages (preferred, if it comes to that), but I believe we lose more than we think we'll gain. And without trying to be pompous, the history is already being lost..it took over 80 hours to find all the sourcing and write the page...now a reader has it all in just minutes! I find the HOTICW article and its content valid and notable, but most importantly in this repository of knowledge, fitting in telling a piece of history from a tiny slice of this world.

Thanks so much for reaching out and if I can help you, or any other editor, slot this article into main space, reach out, and I'll be there. Great, now I've got a Four Tops earwig in my head.

On a closing note, Melmann, truly impressive work you do. Talk about mammoth, exhaustive efforts!

Shortiefourten (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)