Jump to content

Talk:Forest Theater

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's "ADA"?

[edit]

"I think we need to get a couple of contractors in there, fix the bathrooms, the electrical, the ADA first. [...]" What does "ADA" mean here?-----2A02:120B:2C76:1510:14B4:B943:9554:E344 (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Americans with Disability Act - section updated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.246.14 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forest Theater. 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:

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) 01:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request - Frederick R. Bechdolt

[edit]
  • Under the Western Drama Society & Carmel Arts & Crafts Club section, the hyperlink is incorrect for Frederick R. Bechdolt.
    • Change the setence: "Other Carmel artists who volunteered their time as actors and set designers include: Cornelius Botke, Ferdinand Burgdorf"
    • To: "Other Carmel artists who volunteered their time as actors and set designers include: Cornelius Botke, Frederick R. Bechdolt"

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging Pacific Repertory Theatre into Forest Theater. I think the content in Pacific Repertory Theatre can easily be explained in the context of Forest Theater's existing section Pacific Repertory Theatre, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Forest Theater. Pacific Repertory Theatre has its own page, has its own section on this page and on the page: Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, Performing Arts section. This is WP:UNDUE for LOCAL at WP. If the merge does not happen, I will be placing the PRT page up for AFD for the above reasons. Maineartists (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists thanks for trying to get this going a month ago. I would encourage you to continue the work now, since there is much too much detail in this article. Take a look at the PRT page, there is good work going on there right now. I am for merging Forest Theater with PRT. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold on. People are actively working on this article, and I plan to go through and remove trivia/streamline text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I question how much of it should even find its way into the main Carmel-by-the-Sea article. The Dairy Queen on Center Blvd could really be the center of social life for some township and would be a WP:DUE inclusion to have an entire paragraph depending on how it's covered in mainstream media, but the Dairy Queen on Pacific Ave would likely be an undue to even mention it for Pierce County, Washington Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Ssilvers, you have mistaken my proposal. It is not to merge Forest Theater into Pacific Repertory Theatre; but to merge Pacific Repertory into Forest Theater; or at least into Golden Bough Playhouse. The work that is beginning done presently at PRT is neither an improvement nor "good work". It is puffery and completely promotional done by, what can only be seen as either fan driven or COI, (much like Golden Bough Playhouse) and is against WP policy. I see that both you and 4meter4 have contributed to Forest Theater, Golden Bough Playhouse and Pacific Repertory Theatre. As it stands now, the work you and 4meter4 have done should (and will be) scrubbed by any good editor who knows what is deemed notable for inclusion. The article only has a small percentage of content that supports its notability for inclusion at WP; and is already represented (with much the same puffery at GBP). All the rest is promotional and needs to go. Listing shows, seasons, staffing history, etc. Once you and 4meter4 have concluded your 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) 13:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toning down the fan writing

[edit]

Hi @GreenC, you reverted some of my efforts at improving this article. The article is currently tagged as being too much fan writing, with shaky sources. There is also much-- too much detail. If my edits made passages confusing, then thanks for correcting that. But please go back to where I reduced undue detail and fan reportage and restore the work I did. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not idea what "fan reportage" or "undue detail" means. Those are cliche terms that are completely meaningless without explanation. What you did was delete important context for understanding the history of the theater. -- GreenC 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will make a few edits and explain them as I go along. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you delete when the theater was at its peak of production? -- GreenC 14:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to block even minor attempts to improve the page, then I suggest you remove the tag and see what other editors have to say. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "minor edits", but you did not answer, why did you delete when the theater was at peak production? It's hard to imagine a more fundamental piece of information for any history. Honestly I'm finding your editorial judgements to be curious. Like you didn't like the phrasing "height" because it sounded like a fan writing, fair enough, but instead of changing the word to something else, you deleted the entire sentence about when the theater was at peak production. It's like you are looking for an excuse to delete text and reduce the article size. Why is this? Those tags at the top are just somebodies opinion, that may or may not be true, they are not official, nor a reason alone to gut the article of important information. -- GreenC 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those tags maybe an opinion. An opinion that information found establishes probable cause of for-consideration public relations editing.
For consideration includes salaried personnel doing edits as part of work related functions. Graywalls (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed payments

[edit]

What is the evidence for this tag? -- GreenC 14:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC:, Look in COI/N about the user Smatprt. Pull up the blind, look out the window. You'll see. I just can't point out, or say what I see, per WP:OUTING. It's beyond obvious. "clear as a bell" as Netherzone put it. Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

What is the evidence for this tag? First, it's a fan. Then, it's a COI ie. someone connected to the theater. Then, it's a paid editor. Well which is it, and what is the evidence? -- GreenC 14:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC The evidence is that the same editor(s) are contributing the exact same puffery and promotional content at all 4 related articles. Period. That constitutes a concise reason for editing at WP outside of simply wanting to write good non-related articles without motive. I'll remove the paid template, but the COI stands. Maineartists (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the 'crimes' one can commit on Wikipedia, have a fan-boy level interest in old theater topics, and dead people, seems like one of the lest reasons to tag an article with COI. Where do you draw the line between an obsessive interest in a niche topic (sports, literature, theater, etc) and having a COI.
Reading Henderson's original prose versus the current version, the former is much more informative, readable, interesting and accurate. Henderson's prose contain a few problems of word choice and repetition, that with a light touch could have easily been corrected while keeping the majority of content within Wikipedia standards. What has happened instead is the deletions have gone overboard resulting in lost information and context.
Those banners are maintenance tags that will need to be removed once its been checked out, and the question is, has the article been checked? We've had many people look at it already. My question for you is what sentences and words in the article do you think constitute the continued need for a COI tag? -- GreenC 18:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC:, what is your idea of burden of proof needed in order to tag an article? Graywalls (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no burden of proof to initially tag the article other than a reasonable rationale. But once an article is tagged, it can't remain indefinitely if the tag is challenged ie. the problems have been corrected. This article has been modified over the last 9 months or so, gone over by many people. My question is what is currently wrong with the article? I would like to fix it, but can't fix a problem that is not apparent. These banners are not statements of fact, they are maintenance messages so people can fix them and remove the banner. What else needs to be fixed? -- GreenC 19:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very existence of some of these articles on Wikipedia was caused by a highly likely COI editor, likely for search prominence and promotional purposes. Currently, one known COI editor and one suspected COI editor represents 30% share of this article's authorship. The mere existence of some of these articles is enough cause for concern. There's enough interest in merging/consolidating them and IMO the tag should remain until it gets to that point. There's no dead line to remove tags promptly. Graywalls (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the "suspected" COI editor? I am a longstanding Wikipedian with a broad interest in theatre, especially musical theatre, in the U.S., UK and worldwide. I am very sad that some editors seem to be willing to delete and/or merge out articles about notable arts organizations and people just because they think they found a COI editor who had contributed content to them. BTW, is Henderson the same as Smatprt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers:, it's the article's starter and another one that's been blocked for COI/UPE. You're not one of them implicated. Graywalls (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Greghenderson2006 is not Smatprt. @Ssilvers:, have you done any research on the latter user at all? There's clear and convincing evidencing of implied paid editing by the latter within Wikipedia definition of "paid". It's blatantly obvious. We just can't talk about the specifics per Wikimedia rules WP:OUTING. This is not a matter involving someone's life or liberty and proving beyond that is not necessary. Graywalls (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC and Ssilvers:, if you have not done a Google Search on this particular COI, searching users can give a clue.
Let's say you want to a screen name celll phone with three Ls. Be sure to put quotes around the phrase, then when the result shows up, click on the "search instead for" link to yield exact result to avoid being re-directed to suggested common term.
Showing results for "cell phone"
Search instead for "celll phone"
Disclaimer: I'm neither confirming nor denying the validity of the search result.
Graywalls (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers Why did you remove the fan tag citing "fixed" in the Summary History? How has it been "fixed"? Also, in looking at the sources, how is it that you are referencing a Letter to Richard N. Palmer from Herbert Heron dated 1963? This letter is held at the Harrison Memorial Library Herbert Heron Collected Papers in the City of Carmel. And GreenC How do you know it was "Boy Scouts" camps when the only reference is this letter. Am I missing an online link to its PDF access or scan? or is this WP:OR? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have now gone through the article and removed the fancruft. Plus, there are a lot of tags there still, so it was redundant. I did not add the letter, and I did not add "Boy Scouts". Per WP:AGF, those refs seem adequate for this type of non-controversial historical info. Obviously we would prefer more accessible refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC Really? Then why is this still in the article: "In 2005, PacRep presented the theater's highest-attended production, Disney's Beauty and the Beast; more than 10,000 people bought tickets." This article is about Forest Theater; not PRT. No source and no reason for inclusion except to promote PRT. And this is most certainly: fancruft. Also, I did not ask if you had added the letter, nor the term "Boy Scouts". The question I asked was: How did you supply this entry [1] based on the source "Letter to Richard N. Palmer from Herbert Heron dated 1963? This letter is held at the Harrison Memorial Library Herbert Heron Collected Papers in the City of Carmel"? I know who added "Boy Scouts", and that is questionable as well. The only way you could have added this entry content is if you researched this letter in person. You did place this: ref name="Cf. Letter to Palmer, June 1963"/ as your cited source, yes? Maineartists (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fancruft to state which of a theatre's productions was its best attended one and to quantify that for readers. BTW, if you have a question for me, please do not combine it with questions for other editors. That is quite confusing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers I'm not sure what your game is here, so I will ask you directly: How is it that you cited a Letter to Richard N. Palmer from Herbert Heron dated 1963 as a source when this letter is held at the Harrison Memorial Library Herbert Heron Collected Papers in the City of Carmel? You contributed this content: [2] and cited the letter as a source. Please answer. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reference was added by the article's creator in July 2009. What's your point? -- GreenC 03:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: this is WP:OR. There is no way this can be verified unless an editor goes to the Carmel Library archives to research it. Maineartists (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add the letter, as Green states. It was in a previous version of the article and was later deleted. I restored it with the surrounding content, because it appears relevant, encyclopedic and properly referenced. The statement in the text concerns Carmel Arts and Crafts Club buying the land from the Carmel Development Company in 1925, which is not a controversial statement. If you have a better ref, add it instead. If you don't think this ref can be used in the article, then put in a cn tag instead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is used more than once in the article. You should know that this is not a RS. It is OR. That's all. Maineartists (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Forest Theater is an outdoor amphitheater". It is literally a physical location. The groups who have put on plays there over the years include the Forest Theater Guild and PRT. I don't see a problem discussing the people and groups who used the amphitheater, and the plays they produced there. Where else on Wikipedia would they go? It's all connected. As for the Boy Scouts, it was in the article originally, someone deleted it as part of the recent gutting of the article, I restored two words of thousands that were deleted. I did not verify the source. Do you have a problem with that? If so, the burden to verify the source is yours not mine. And your idea of fancruft as noted by Ssilver suggests a lack of interest in this topic, which makes me wonder why you are even involved, you clearly find very little of interest other than the very most basic facts. -- GreenC 03:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC wrote: "I did not verify the source. Do you have a problem with that? If so, the burden to verify the source is yours not mine." Now you know that is completely false at WP. The WP:ONUS lies with the editor who initially contributes the content. Especially if the content is unsourced. That is WP 101. Second, what are you even talking about: "outdoor amphitheater", "physical location", etc? I didn't even broach this odd line of questioning. Both you and Ssilvers added content backed by an inline source from a letter held in the Harrison Memorial Library. It is absolutely warranted to question how this source was obtained. My "idea" has nothing to do with the fact that this page is about Forest Theater, not the ticket sales of PRT. You yourself just said: "Where else on Wikipedia would they go?" On their own separate, individual WP pages. That's why we have them. My "interest" is in writing a good article at WP, not about the promotion or glorification of this page or PRT. Maineartists (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the editor who initially contributes the content". I didn't initially add the Boy Scouts. Did you read what I wrote? It was already there. Frankly your logic is difficult to follow. You recognize that the burden is on the person who originally added it, but then you say the burden is on us to verify it, even though we didn't even add the source in the first place! And then you want us to split this article in separate pages? What? That's crazy, good luck getting consensus. Graywalls already said above that people are talking about merging the content, nobody is going to want to create even more pages on this topic. -- GreenC 05:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--> "not about the promotion or glorification of this page" - Never said that was your intent. And neither Ssilvers or myself have a COI - OK? You might like my essay about the powerful human instinct to punish wrong doers, it frequently gets people into trouble on Wikipedia, and in life: User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish -- GreenC 05:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC It seems that the editors in question have a similar tendency to change the subject when asked very simple questions; or deflect from the topic presented. My logic is perfectly sane in keeping with WP policy. "Boy scout" was originally included by the editor who created the article and was shown to have not only a COI but also a paid association. I have absolutely no problem with the addition of two simple words. The original content was not sourced. Your very own admission that you "did not check the source" then links you with that original content; which - by WP policy - should be challenged, and / or, removed. Period. I was / am trying to find out how access was gained to a letter held in the Carmel Library. That's all. You answered that question for yourself ("Previously included"). But I have present Ssilvers with a very straightforward question about access to a letter and it has gone unanswered. This thread has nothing to do with "splitting articles". I am here to address the problems with each article individually in hopes that this does not need to happen. I have not "punished" anyone. I will re-iterate: I have not even touched this article yet. I am gathering facts about sources, how they have been acquired, and more importantly: other editors consensus and opinions about the article itself. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[left] Just because a source is not easily accessible does not mean that it is WP:OR. This one is a primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, so it is not optimal. If you have a more accessible source for this fact, please add it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/302848036 here's an edit by someone with conflict of interest in elevating and presenting Pacific Repertory Theatre in a favorable prominent light. Graywalls (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

$500 profit

[edit]

In this edit Special:Diff/1255717090/1255958497 a note about how much profit the theater made, $500, and why this was important, to reduce the theaters debt, was deleted as "boosterism". Can User:Melchior2006 explain why they did this? The entire paragraph starts with a discussion of going into debt during the great depression, then ends with them going out of debt later. What is the problem with this? You only want to include the negative material, going into debt, and delete the positive, getting out of debt. It is clearly biased against the theater to edit this way. -- GreenC 15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just too much detail for an encyclopia article. The amount is not unusually high, the detail about such fundraising is WP:UNDUE. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a change of position from your initial edit summary, which said it was promotional ("boosterism"). If it says they went into debt, how they were impacted during the Great Depression, it also should say they got out of debt. This is not a lot of detail, it is a history of the theaters problems and successes. That's what history is. Recall you also deleted when the theater was at peak production. These are important facts for understanding the history of the theater: its rise, fall, successes, problems overcome. -- GreenC 16:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original content line was: "... reduced the theater's debt." Where does it say anywhere that it got them out of debt; or "ends with them going out of debt later" on account of the revival and village fair? (I may be missing something) ... These lines, and others such as: "In September 1936, Remsen's Inchling was presented again", should not be kept solely on the basis of: "it's not a lot of detail, so what's the problem"? Maineartists (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the $500 amount but restored the info that the show reduced the debt, which was the point and helps the reader understand the ebbs and flows of the theater's history. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with these excruciating details. Save this for someone's book, but encyclopedia isn't supposed to be exhaustive coverage of such details of barely notable (if even at all) buildings/places/people. Greg created edited articles are generally very heavy on names and dollar figures. Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said it. The article is like some club's private scrapbook. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of their some of Carmel related articles are truly ridiculous. They go go like John Doe, husband of Sally BooBoo, daughter of Who Knows village's early pioneer Kevin Moneyless bought a car for $500 ($25000 in 20xx dollars) from Motor Carriage of Nowhere village, owned by Adam Eve III's, former state rep. Graywalls (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may have chuckled just a little too hard at this. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of amateur theatre groups that do 2 productions per year, for a few performances each, included in Wikipedia that contain a list of every production they have done and details of all the people involved, etc. But sometimes they get press. I have been on AfD before voting to delete them. This is not the same at all, and Forest Theater is a major arts venue hosting numerous performances and other events every year since 1910. The theater and its history are very encyclopedic, and our article content rules support summarizing the events of its history that are supported by good sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain the massive article contamination by Special:Contributions/Justfollowingtherules and plethora of other PR accounts and WP:LOUTSOCK in various theatre articles including Forest Theatre and PRT? Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers "Forest Theater is a major arts venue". I think you may be a little too close to this subject to neutrally assess it. Typing in "Forest Theater" in a Google Search renders: The Forrest Theatre in Philadelphia, Forest Theater in Dallas, Kitsap Forest Theater, Forest Theatre in North Carolina, etc. Clicking on this Forest Theater Foundation website, one is greeted with a pop-up window stating that there will be no 2020 Season due to COVID and the last productions listed were in 2019; proving that this foundation website has not been touched in years. Saying that "Forest Theater is a major arts venue hosting numerous performances and other events every year since 1910" is a bit much. The source that could even come close to backing this claim found within the article is from 2016 - eight years ago. Forest Theater is not Pacific Repertory Theater. Maineartists (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection of any kind with Forest Theater. I have never even been to Carmel. I am just interested in the arts, as you can see at my user page. I agree that the theater is not the same as PacRep, which is why they each need their own articles. According to the sources, PacRep currently operates the theatre (under a 5-year license from the city), not the old foundation. Forest Theater Guild also seems to be active. See the last three sources cited in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forest_Theater&oldid=1258070386"