Talk:Broadway Sacramento

Assessment notes

No way is this article a B class, because:

• Has POV all over it with its boosterism
• Woefully lacking sources
• Has need of correction of mis-spellings (e.g. "loured")
• Breadth is lacking.

Best regards, Feralfeline 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me!--Amadscientist (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 controversy

The section on the prop 8 controversy was added because it is note worthy and very easy to reference. (Very easy) It is still an ongoing stiuation so i am leaving the tag above the section.

Spelling variations

Wikipedia guidelines on spelling variations say that articles about subjects in the United States should use standard American spellings. Of course, this doesn't apply to proper nouns.--Bhuck (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

THEATRE is the proper US spelling. Editors should research other articles about theatre in Wiki before making sweeping changes that are incorrect.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about just what articles should be researched? I was thinking of the explanation located here.--Bhuck (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Both theatre and theater are valid US spellings. Guidelines say that spelling ought not to be altered. The argument about regional variation is a red herring. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All wiki links to "Theatre" use this spelling it is consistant with the US Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about which guideline exactly says that when and under what circumstances spelling should not be altered? In what sense is the argument about regional variation a red herring? You will note that I did not alter the spelling in the wikilinks, although it is not true that all wikilinks to theater/theatre use the British spelling. See for example Regional theater in the United States.--Bhuck (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I was taught in both Highschool and in college, the spelling of theatre was never intended to be ER. It is a simple case of a dictionary interpretation. Webster just wanted to make a distinction between American spelling and British spelling. In reality the use of RE for theatre is the accepted spelling in the US and really always has been. When refering to a movie theatre some prefere the er but it is simply the same spelling. I do not know about guidelines for spelling but I will say this....why change the spelling when the Wikipages use that spelling.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that this article needs to be changed? I happen to think that that article is accurate, but if it is not, then it needs changing. Otherwise Wikipedia is inconsistent, saying that Americans spell the word "theater" and then writing "theatre" even in American contexts (or Wikipedia is taking a British-Australian-etc. POV with regard to spellings). In cases where we are linking to articles without a specific American context, we can justify using the other spelling because it is a link to a specific article using that spelling. When linking to the regional theater article, we should of course also link to the spelling used in that article. And when not linking to anything at all, we should use "theater" (if we are talking about something in California), unless it is a proper noun--the California Musical Theatre can spell its name anyway it wants--it could also decide to be the Kalifornia Musical Theatre, and then we would spell California with a K when writing the proper noun name of the theater and say that the KMT was located in California (with a C).--Bhuck (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You actualy bring up a very important point. Yes, I do believe that article needs to be changed as it is refering to a very old standard. Since the mid 1980s the RE spelling has been returning in everyday use. For "Movie Theatre" as well "Live Theatre". I want to makw the changes but will only do so when I have time to save the proper refrences.

Wikipedia is edited by so many people it is up to the editors themselves to decide on the consensus of what is to be used here. Honestly I just hardly see the ER spelling anymore.

Here are a few links to provide some measure of reference to my claim.

Regal Entertainment

One other thing....which is funny. Google "Theater" with the ER and the first thing at the top of the list....is the Wikipedia page for "Theatre". Just kind of amusing I thought but anyways.....--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will hold off a few more days before switching the spelling back to theater, and wait to see how the project of changing the article on American and British spelling goes. If that gets successfully changed, there would be no need to switch the spelling here. I think the New York Times does use the er spelling, and I think that is a fairly authoritative source for what constitutes American spelling, but, hey, let's see what references you can dig up and what other people think about them.--Bhuck (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the conflict between you and Dionysos Proteus (or however he spells his name), but was wondering if you had made any progress on the spelling research.--Bhuck (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 Controversy in lead

I have restored the information on the prop 8 controversy to the lead. Please do not delete it. The lead ought to be a summary of information in the article. It is entirely appropriate for it to appear in the lead. The age of the theatre is immaterial. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to remove this information in the lead. It is redundant as I added an entire section on this. It is not needed and you need to justify you actions to consensus before you add the paragraph again. Why don't you expand the Prop 8 section instead of contunuing to insult me with your need to make this entire article about the single action of one man...one time....who no longer works for th company. You seem to have a great deal of experiance in theatre. I hope you are apart of Project Theatre, but understand....while I do not own this article I started it, I continue to add to it...(Including the section on the Prop 8 controversy. I am the major contributer to this article. As such I am an editor with a vested interest in making it the best it can be.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consult wikipedia guidelines on the format for introductions. They ought to summarize information found in the article. Conformity with Wikipedia guidelines is all the justification required. Your fantasies about my motives or your unstable emotions are utterly irrelevant--please do not waste my time with them again. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is required. Don't waste my time or my effort and don't be an ass.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiguidlines state;

The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

Simply put. That section is not important enough to the overall subject to be included. It may be so for the article on Scott Eckern himself but not here.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The information is important enough to warrant a section of the article, which means its important enough to summarise in the introduction. You don't own the article nor do you get to decide what's important. Leave it alone or be reported for vandalism. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's correct.....no one makes that desicion alone it requires consensus. You have made a determintation on your own without consensus. Don't threaten me. You know full well it is not vandalism. Report it if you wish. I will continue to delete it.

If you want it there so bad contact the other editors to gain consensus. If not I will request this article be locked. Just being in the article does not mean it is to be used in the lead. Here is why I object to this in the lead and why I believe it is not of enough importance to be in the lead.....the article is not about Scott Eckern, it's about the theatre. The information that would be added in the lead would have to do with the theatre and not the "Former" artistic directors political contributions.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline on Introductions states that they should summarise the article. That is a Wikipedia guideline that has already gained the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large. The information on Eckern's controversy makes up about a quarter of the article. The lead, therefore, needs to include that information. No consensus from you or any other editor is required for that, it has already been agreed upon in the guidelines. Your feelings of being "threatened" or "insulted" are utterly irrelevant and inappropriate. Please stop vandalising this article. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I pasted exactly what the guidlines state. Your refusal to seek consensus is selfesh at best. I remind you that you are not the only editor on this article. While I understnad that you feel the section needs to be there I do not. It is simple....get consensus of the majority of editors from this page and see what they believe should be done.

I am not walking away from an article I started just because someone wants to define one of California's oldest theatre's with a controversy....which I included after a number of vandals tried to add it in a very insulting way against wikipolicy. But let me make this clear. We are only two editors, if you can come up with two additional editors who have contributed to this article to agree that the section should be included in the lead I will leave it in. Otherwise I will continue to remove it. As stated Wikiguidelines DO NOT REQUIRE ALL information be summerized in the lead just what is important. Explain why this is important. The controversy needs to be ib the article. It is a part of the history of this theatre now but it is not of such great importance that it must be a part of the lead. It was not the actions of the theatre it was the actions of an employee who no longer works there.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the article. The section comprises a quarter of the article's content, and so ought to be summarised in the intro. That's what the guidelines state. The controversy was newsworthy only because the bozo was the artistic director of the theatre. If a section belongs in the article, which it clearly does, then it belongs in the intro. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of vandalsim is baseless and your attempt at bullying me will not succeed. Follow Wikipedia guidelines or stop editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DionysosProteus, your belligerent and unnecessarily aggressive attitude is inappropriate. Right now, I will not protect the article because I believe this dispute is capable of being resolved without such action, but this is beginning to become a disruptive edit war. Personally, I am inclined to agree with Amadscientist. This article is about a Theatre and, thought it may warrant mention in a section, the controversy in question seems to be a recent event which will not be particularly notable in the long run, and certainly will not be a defining point of the theatre. That said, there may be room for debate on the matter. I encourage the two of you to continue to work towards a consensus and to bring in the opinion of other involved editors. If the warring continues without progress, I will lock the page. Goodnightmush^Talk 06:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That Amadscientist feels insulted by a Wikipedia edit has nothing to do with my intentions or attitude--it simply indicates his/her own emotional state. The Wikipedia policy on Introductions is perfectly clear and I suggest you both re-familiarise yourselves with it. The section on the controversy in which the theatre found itself embroiled constitutes a quarter of the total length of this article. As such it belongs in the lead. Your guesses about the future notability of the controversy belong in the future--for now, the event certainly is notable, as the size of its section indicates. Amadscientist quibbles that the controversy concerns only one employee; to state the blisteringly obvious, he was not just any old employee, he was the Artistic Director. Amadscientist suggests that I wish to define the theatre in terms of this controversy; I have absolutely no agenda to pursue about this minor provincial theatre on the other side of the planet to me. Despite having lived in California studying theatre for several years, I've never heard of the place and am indifferent to the question of its positive or not reputation. I came to the article through the Wikiproject Theatre. As such, I am simply editing in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. While the controversy constitutes such a large proportion of the article, it ought to be in the lead. Removing the content when it is in line with Wikipedia guidelines constitutes vandalism. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is required to keep that section in the lead. I do not agree that it belongs there. An Administrator (two in fact) have warned you. You are not editing in good faith. You are the one saying that I am insulted by your edit. I am insulted by your attitude and your editing style.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct. What belongs in the intro is determined by Wikipedia policy. An article that ignores one quarter of its material in the lead is clearly not following the guidelines. And it is you that said you felt insulted by the edits--see above. Please, once again, stop vandalizing this article by removing legitimate, relevant and appropriate material from the lead. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Amadscientist, you have consistently failed to engage with the substance of the justification for the information in the lead. Please, once again, STOP VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE DionysosProteus (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been warned by admin on this page that what you are doing is against Wiki policy. Consider this my last message to you. You are now doing what you claim I have done. You are making reverts that even Wikipedia Administrators disagree with....especially in the manner you are doing it. You fail to edit by consensus and in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, the insertion of nonsense into articles or otherwise replacing legitimate content with vandalism.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You have persistently failed to engage with the argument as to why this belongs in the lead. It makes up about a quarter of the article. See the guidelines on what should appear in the lead. An event, however personally distasteful to you, that occupies such a large proportion, is clearly important enough to be summarised in the lead. You are fully aware of this. You are editing explicitly in bad faith. I have made you fully aware of the basis in wikipedia policy for the statement's appearance in the lead, and you have ignored it and removed the sourced information. I have duly reported you for edit warring and the 3RR. I was invited to take a look at the article from a request on the theatre wikiproject page. I have detailed my own non-investment in either promoting or disparaging the theatre above. Quite why you so ardently wish to avoid all mention of the current events in which the theatre has found itself caught up in the lead has yet to be explained. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See warning by admin above.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I will take one last shot at this with you because your last post amounts to a lie. I have explained in full my reasoning as to why the text you contributed is not appropriate. I have already researched and even posted wiki guidlines about the lead that you are simply ignoring and redifining against consensus. You are editing in bad faith.

I am not avoiding the current event's of the theatre, in fact, I added the information to begin with in it's own section and referenced it. I also began the Scott Eckern page but saw that it was limited to just the "Controversy" and requested it be removed. On the contrary, I have gone out of my way to even add your text to the History section where it belongs. As Admin has told you this is a current event that will not define the theatre in the long run. You do have a clear agenda and that is to define this theatre and it's former Artistic Director with this single controversy.

Your misunderstanding of Wikipedia Guidelines seems somewhat odd considering how intelligent you seem to be. I have no choice but to consider your constant reverts against consensus as vandalism as defined by Wikipedia.

You seem bent on twisting this situation to a disturbing point of lies, half truths and exaggerations that are easily seen by anyone who can read this talk page. You are stepping over a line here sir, I do not care why you are doing it, but you MUST stop NOW!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Guys, that's enough. Both of you seem to have crossed the line into incivility and probably should take a break to cool off. Take my word for it: finger pointing and accusations are pointless, and only aggravate the situation. This is a content dispute, and I suggest you look to dispute resolution in this situation. Try a request for comment or third party. In the meantime, I have temporarily protected the page, as I am not convinced that this edit war will stop.

1. Assume good faith. Enough said.
2. Amadscientist is correct when saying "This is a current event that will not define the theatre in the long run." In any dispute resolution process, this will probably be a popular opinion by mediators. DionysosProteus is correct that the controversy occupies a large portion of the body of the article, but this does not mean that it necessarily should occupy this much space. If this article was developed fully, this controversy would be of a relatively small importance, for example. This is merely my (third party) opinion, so take it to dispute resolution if that doesn't help settle things.
3. No more reverting. While I have reviewed the situation and decided that a 3RR block of Amadscientist is not warranted at this time, when this page is unprotected, and if no dispute resolution process has been tried but the edit war continues, I or another administrator may issue a block even if the three revert rule isn't violated.

Play nice, guys. And above all, remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of Theatre on this article

The California Musical Theatre has chosen the above spelling. The following reason is given why that spelling should be used throughout the article;

As an English Wikipedia this site uses spelling from the English Language. "British" spelling of the word "Theatre" is in question here. But American spelling should never take presedence when an accepted spelling has become common place throughout the international communtiy.....in English.

The spelling in question is not the title of the article or the theatre. Simply put, by changing the spelling of that word with every use here would eventually confuse future editors who may wish to move the article's title to a different spelling incorrectly thereby making the wikipedia article and ALL mirror sites incorrect.

It has been suggested that spelling theatre with the RE ending is incorrect. However it is clear no such consensus exists within the Wikipedia community. It has also been suggested that experts may weigh in on this to provide needed confirmation to change the spelling in this article as well as others. I comment on that in this way. Experts of what? Spelling in standardised American words? Spelling of standardised British spelling? This is an Internet site and there is no way to establish credentials of any member here. That is why Wikipedia uses consensus to form how an article is written.

We cannot simply change every theatre page written on Wikipedia. We also cannot change the spelling on the various theatre projects or portals. I cannot begin to suggest that every spelling of THEATER with the ER spelling be changed.....unless the article name is such.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was never suggesting we change every theater page on Wikipedia. Articles about general theater topics with no geographic specificity (such as theatre in the round or musical theatre) cannot make the claim of being particularly American. Similarly articles about non-American theater topics would stay at the -re spelling. Furthermore, articles about theaters in the U.S. which deliberately choose to use the non-American spelling would stay under the -re spelling, but only when referring to that theater itself as a proper noun, not when referring to other theater topics. At the article about American and British spelling differences, I pointed out that in Chicago, there seems to be a great deal of inconsistency in usage. Since you have now made some changes to that article, I am willing to accept the -re spelling in this article as long as those changes in that article are accepted, though after a couple of months, if the fact tags are still there, we will have to do something about that. So let's just wait and see what the people at the spelling article think about all this. Thank you for taking the initiative to change things there!--Bhuck (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I used that as an analogy not really claiming that you thought all articles should be changed. But when we start down that road others take up the mantle. It could lead to confusion. American usage of that spelling for theatre, even in Chicago have varied because British actors have influenced American theatre since it's conception. That is the very reason why the spelling stuck even after Webster attempted to "Americanize" spelling.

I only ask one thing from you. That is to try to understand that just because we are referring to an American institution does not mean it must follow perceived American spelling. We are but one country that makes use of the English language. Editors from these other countries, as well as non English speaking countries editing in English, cannot be expected to know these differences not really defined as proper English. But I do thank you for your input and bringing up this very important issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think either a lot of U.S. theaters are deliberately misspelling their own names (which is perfectly within their rights--it is all part of image and marketing), or else the spelling article here is still wrong, since it continues to claim that the theater spelling is "prevailing" in the U.S. But we have called the attention of the editors there to this inconsistency and we will see how it develops. If it turns out that "theater" is the prevailing U.S. spelling, and that many institutions choose to deliberately misspell their own names, then we can see what the consequences of that will be for those various U.S.-related articles. Certainly there would be no consequences for more general, worldwide articles or for non-U.S. articles. But the process of developing consensus on this point is slow.--Bhuck (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess part of the debate is whether either is a misspelling as both can be located in dictionaries it can easily be said both are proper spellings. As to a prevailing usage....that may be impossible to reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Some dictionaries ascribe a regional prevalence to each spelling. Perhaps "deliberate deviation from the prevailing spelling for the region in which they are located" would be a more accurate phrasing than "misspelling".--Bhuck (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Condensed Prop 8 section

I have made the section smaller. It seems a better fit for the overall size of the article, yet retains the same information.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Broadway Sacramento/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As a theatre form Music Circus stands alone as a unique experiance that is no longer seen in it's original form. This structure has a high importance in that it is designed to look like the circus tent it replaces and is the only Musuc Circus still producing musicals in the summer stock tradition begun over 50 years ago.--Amadscientist 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)