Talk:The Glasshouse, Gateshead

Advert tag

For the {{advert}} to stay on the article, there should be some actionable comments on the talkpage describing what makes this article appear to be an advertisement. There is no such discussion so I think the tag should be taken down. DVD 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The {{advert}} tag appears to be placed on the article in September 2008, a number of edits have been made but the article still appears to be an advert and no work to correct the article has taken place. 9 Months in the WP world is an exceptionally long time. //Melonite (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot would be lost if the article were speedily deleted, ie. coords, categories, images, some information. It just looks to me like it could use some unsourced passages deleted. Some of them are already marked as unsourced. I'm not really seeing the advertisement aspect though, I wish you could point out instances of that here so they could be deleted or rewritten. DVD 18:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You need to complete the AfD steps listed on the template if you want to start that process. DVD 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I understand the advert-objections, but AFD? What kind of absurd solution is that? The building alone is notable. I mean look at it. You don't like the advertisements, then delete those sections. Heck, pare it down only the first paragraph (with a gallery) and let it grow back from there. People are going to want to know what this building is. Where's the AFD discussion so that I can vote? DavidRF (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, also, that the AfD process has not been completed properly. I do not really understand all this AfD stuff but I thought this was the nominator's responsibility and I see no further edits after those here. Otherwise it looks a bit "drive-by" to just tag the article. I would not wish to cause trouble but I am quite tempted, if the process is not completed very soon, to simply remove the tag - if it's not nominated properly then what is there to discuss - and where? Finally, I must add that I find it an extremely questionable nomination, well, totally groundless to be honest. Objections to the content may require attention, sure, but deletion is an unbelievable, wildly inappropriate proposal. It's a major concert venue in a major conurbation, and it must stay. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just took down the AfD template. I suggested AfD when I removed the speedy proposal, expecting it to easily pass and see some improvement while there but it really is the nominator's responsibility to complete the nomination. I'm tempted to remove the {{advert}} which suggests {{db-spam}}. I'd prefer to have no template but maybe {{refimprove}} would apply. What does everyone here think? Can anyone point to specific statements that make it sound like an advertisement? DVD 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it does read as if it was copied out of a brochure. The Origins sections focuses a lot on the building's designers and patrons. Is that common? The architects are usually mentioned, but there's a lot of detail there I did not expect. The opening concert was a few years ago now, so that could be trimmed down... no need to sell the free admission over gala concert. The next paragraph just needs to get rid of some peacock phrasing... "intimate venue", "possibly the world's only", "Even the", "open to the public", "visitors can see". Just needs rephrasing in my opinion to make it less flowery. My personal writing style might be too dry, but in my opinion I wouldn't worry about being too dry here with those pictures and the impressive list of appearing artists. Facts speak better than prose here. My two cents. DavidRF (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

DavidRF, it sounds like you are a perfect candidate to rewrite the article. I thought about it myself, but I am unprepared. DVD 06:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a little go. This qualifies me to agree that DavidRF is definitely the right man for the job! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and well done for de-nomming it - hope it works out well now. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks fine now.  :-)DavidRF (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article looks much better now, no longer like an advert. 90.194.37.139 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Page title

The title to this page should be "Sage Gateshead" not "The Sage Gateshead" as the name of the venue is "Sage Gateshead" without a "The". "The" in this page title is an unnecessary addition, "Sage Gateshead" is a more concise and accurate title. I'd like to start a discussion on this. AF Henrie (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone objects to me changing the title of this page from "The Sage Gateshead" to "Sage Gateshead" please add your reasons to this discussion. If the consensus is that the title should be changed to "Sage Gateshead", I will make this change on Thursday 27th November 2014. AF Henrie (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sage Gateshead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006052604/http://www.soundspacedesign.co.uk/projectsage.htm to http://www.soundspacedesign.co.uk/projectsage.htm
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120113043736/http%3A//www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends45/0001087445_ac_20110331_e_c.pdf to http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends45/0001087445_ac_20110331_e_c.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.officeronline.co.uk/events/270919.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The Sage, Gateshead → Sage Gateshead – The title to this page should be "Sage Gateshead" not "The Sage, Gateshead" Mark R73 (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• What's your rationale for this move? O.N.R. ^(talk) 18:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURAL since a simple Google search shows most sources call it "Sage Gateshead" instead of "The Sage". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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