Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Theatres in Sutton

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Charles Cryer Theatre, Secombe Theatre

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

The Secombe Theatre

  • Comment: Not a self-nomination.

Created by A P Monblat (talk). Nominated by Launchballer (talk) at 19:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

  • Review Okay, Cryer Theatre, is passed, except for the Prince opening because the link is dead. Because of close paraphrasing, I had to rewrite most of the article. Secombe also has a deadlink in the lead section. Except for those, it's a pass. ~ R.T.G 20:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment @A P Monblat and Launchballer:I want to remove the Charles Cryer article so that we can used this hook below in ALT1 because I believe that will generate a thousand hits but saying "named after the guy who liked it" will generate a hundred..
  • ALT1 ... that closure-threatened Secombe Theatre (pictured) was converted from a Christian Scientist Church in 1984?
  • Note: All that is needed to pass is to address the dead links. Changing the DYK is just my idea. ~ R.T.G 21:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am happy with ALT 1 (with small typo correction which I have made). A P Monblat (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Update I have fixed the broken link for Charles Cryer, but not for Secombe, as the whole Welsh Icons website appears to be unobtainable. A P Monblat (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@A P Monblat:Well the only bit that leaves unsourced is that Prince Harry opened it. There are a lot of Secombe surnames associated with Harry in the press (I can't find an alternative resource), so I'd just remove that sentence and source the opening sentence to another source already on the page, and then it's a pass... Note it on the talk page and someone will add it eventually or disprove it or whatever. ~ R.T.G 08:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
And if this one uses only one of the articles, you could try for another one with the other theatre. ~ R.T.G 08:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@RTG: I have followed your advice, and removed the now unsourced fact (by the way it is Sir Harry, not Prince Harry), and have used the Theatre Trust link for the opening sentence. So, I think we are now good to go on the Secombe Theatre, and can always nominate the Charles Cryer Theatre on another occasion, as you say. However, I think we should wait for Launchballer, as nominator, to indicate that he too is content. A P Monblat (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Is this approach OK with you too? A P Monblat (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@A P Monblat and Launchballer: I will go ahead and place the tick, and also, I have reviewed the Cryer article. If you can put a hook here for it, I can approve them both in one go even if they are split to two DYKs, or at least, enter a new nomination for it, and ping me in the comment, and I can just approve it. ~ R.T.G 11:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment for closing admin please read this one carefully. there is discussion of splitting this into two DYKs (for a more catchy hook based on one of them), just in case ~ R.T.G 11:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Struck the original hook because it is not supported in the Secombe article by an inline source citation after the relevant sentence, and the articles are clearly being split. Fixed the grammar of the ALT1 hook, which I didn't understand until I'd read the article. I'm a bit troubled by the Secombe article's using the phrase "future was secured" in the Operation of the theatre section, only to say that it's at risk of closure in the next section. I think the former needs to be reworded, while the risk needs to be better explained in the latter (there's more detail in the Tim Vine source, and the link from it to the council's consultation led me to discover that the consultation period ended hours before I got there), including when the council decided to consider closing various cultural institutions, before the nomination can be approved. Incidentally, the Cryer article should be addressed in this nomination—even if separately—rather than opening a new nomination, which would be considered to be too late. For that, however, a new hook is needed, and should be proposed right away. Once that is done, a new reviewer will be needed for ALT1, since an RTG-created hook cannot also be approved by RTG. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have made the two edits about Secombes security and possible closure. That leaves only the hooks. So I will note in short below that it is just the hooks now, ~ R.T.G 10:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

New reviewer needed to approve hooks only, ALT1 above, and one for the Cryer theatre (I will mark it "ALT1a, ALT2a" for the Cryer) ALT1a ... that the Charles Cryer Theatre, opened by His Royal Highness Prince Edward in 1991 in Carshalton, was given the name of a man who campaigned for creation of the local Secombe Theatre? ALT2a ... that the Charles Cryer Theatre, opened by His Royal Highness Prince Edward in 1991 in Carshalton, has also been a public hall, an ice skating rink and a cinema? (Note: or if those hooks are a bit wordy, try removing reference to prince Edward, or ping me and I'll do it) ~ R.T.G 10:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should retain the reference to Prince Edward as this adds notability, but I am otherwise happy with both ALT1a and ALT2a. I have also fixed a small typo in the former; and have added in "(pictured)" in ALT1, as it comes with an image. A P Monblat (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Not sure if that does it? ~ R.T.G 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I think it is okay with AP Monblat okaying the hook so I will put the tick. ~ R.T.G 11:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, RTG should not be approving hooks that he or she proposed. Someone else will need to review those. (Which I think means the hooks for both articles, at this point.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have removed the two tags, as I don't think they apply any more- see article history for reasons. A P Monblat (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it not okay for A P Monblat to review the hooks? It was their say so I thought had it. ~ R.T.G 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As creator, A P Monblat can say whether a proposed hook works or not—we give a certain amount of deference to nominators on what hooks should be used—but neither nominator nor creator can approve hooks on their nominations. The same is true for people who propose hooks; they can't review their own hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check the ALT hooks for the two articles. Be sure to specify which hooks/articles are approved, and strike any that aren't to avoid confusion. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • for Alts 1a and 2a (Charles Cryer Theatre)—1a is not supported by the article (which says rollerskating, not ice skating, though I have the balance for neither!) and 2a is too long. It's 183 characters (17 under the 200 hard limit), but is too wordy, too complicated. Without the Prince Edward sub-clause it would probably be acceptable, but I haven't extensively reviewed the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Good to go for ALT 1 (Secombe Theatre; ... that closure-threatened Secombe Theatre (pictured) was converted from a Christian Scientist Church in 1984? ). New enough, long enough, hook fact is cited and verified. No obvious issues with copyright/NPOV/etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note to promoter: please do not close this template when you promote the Secombe Theatre hook; instead, strike that hook and remove the DYKmake and DYKnom for it. Work will continue on the Charles Cryer Theatre part of the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Secombe hook has been promoted and then struck here and the DYKmake/DYKnom templates for it have been deleted, since it is now completed. All that remains to do is the nomination of Charles Cryer Theatre. I've struck ALT2a (which mentions the non-existent ice staking rink). A new review is in order since the article has a new Productions and workshops section; reviewer should take into account HJ Mitchell's comments on ALT1a's length (which he accidentally ascribes to ALT2a). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • How about leaving out the words "His Royal Highness" from ALT1a, while retaining "Prince Edward"? A P Monblat (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That would result in the following 164-character hook:
Review still needed per above. —BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If I can review that hook it's passed, ~ R.T.G 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Since you can't, RTG—ALT1b is your ALT1a with "His Royal Highness" removed—we'll need an independent reviewer to approve ALT1b. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This article is long enough and was new enough when nominated back in August. The hook facts in ALT1b have inline citations. I detected no neutrality or close paraphrasing issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Theatres_in_Sutton&oldid=1017043158"