Talk:Sheringham Little Theatre

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Youth program section[edit]

Since this is just a two way revert war at the moment I'm bringing this here for others to comment:

The IPs associated with the theater program have been adding information about the youth theater program to the article. I have been removing it.

In my opinion, this is little more than trivial cataloging of what shows the program has produced. That's unnecessary in my opinion.

I welcome outside views. only (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

In addition to the youth program section as noted above, I see other article issues. Because I am being reverted by an assortment of IPs, I bring it here in the hopeful attempt at discussion and views rather than reverting. Here is my "preferred version": [1] and here is the IP's: [2]

Among my concerns...

POV language: On Wikipedia we utilize a neutral point of view. Examples of this are various and my emphasis is added throughout these examples: "and giving dozens of talented local youngsters the chance to perform as a children’s chorus"; "re-opening later that same year as the beloved Sheringham Little Theatre"; "It is also home to regular and popular 'Jazz at the Hub' evenings". Because of this, I removed many of these occurrances and added the {{advert}} tag.
Unenyclopedic language: Examples include "local youngsters", "an army of volunteers," "a scheme was introduced," "hand-picked," "provide a mix of," "unique venture." Again, I removed the offending terms and replaced with a more neutral or encyclopedic tone.
Missing citations: Many statements about the theater are without citations; because of this, I added {{CN}} templates in parts where they were needed. Examples of statements that require sources include "The Little Theatre is home to one of the last summer repertory seasons" and "In 2012 it underwent £45,000 worth of renovation to the building by landlords North Norfolk District Council and now has a digital projector, cafe and bar."
Non-primary sources: In the version that I parsed it down to, only 2 sources are used, and those are 2 links to the theatre's website. THe IP's preferred version also has sources from local news but the content in that version is a concern to me.
Children's theater: See above for my concerns in depth, but essentially: it's merely a listing of shows the youth theater program has staged.
Oliver: In my opinion, there's nothing notable about this that it requires its own narrative. The language in it is non encyclopedic and the section mostly serves as a tribute to a non-notable person who died.
Sir John Hurt: Essentially the same as the Oliver concern. It's a non-notable tribute that is written about non-encyclopedically. While Hurt is notable, the narrative provided here is not deserving of its undue weight.
Friendly Faces Scheme: Again, non-encyclopedic, promotional language. No sources outside of its website. Unnecessary quote within it.
Awards: I eliminated the expanded upon details about who the company beat and the long list of reasons it was praised; the quote about how great it is to win the award is unnecessary. The fact that they were rated by TripAdvisor is also unnecessary.

Overall, I believe the changes I have implemented have created an article that is more encyclopedic and in standing with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. What the IPs are advocating for is too promotional and contains too much that would be more appropriate for their website than an encyclopedia article.

As above, I welcome outside discussion and opinion on this article. only (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the request at 3O, I started to nominate this for deletion, but a Google news search suggests that there might be enough third-party refs out there to justify keeping it, but it needs a lot of work and vastly less unsourced information. Restoring unsourced information without a reliable source, however, is a clear violation of one of our core policies, WP:BURDEN, so I reverted the last IP edit. I don't have time to work on it, but thanks to Only for taking it on. There's a lot to do. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your views, TransporterMan. I put it in at 3O because I’d tried the WikiProjects (twice in the case of the theater wikiproject) to no avail and the IP address is always revolving so I doubt they got my message on their talk page. only (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: @Only: - please see my comments here. Acabashi (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]