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

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)

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)