Talk:Apollo Theatre

Edit Summaries & Sources
Ive brought here as user insists on not discussing or using proper edit summaries and he snips and reverts any attempt to politely discuss with him. He has removed two valid sources using edit summaries Ce or source. This does not explain why he is using the BBC as the only reliable source when statements can and should be supported by multiple reliable source for verification. He has reverted twice and should discuss before reverting anyone again and certainly be using better and more detailed edit summaries. I have added the sky source back in as we shouldn't be relying mostly on one reliable source no matter how good they supposedly are. Blethering  Scot  22:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Apollo Theatre balcony collapses". BBC News. 19 December 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2013.

"Apollo Theatre Collapse Causes Injuries". news.sky.com. Sky News. 19 December 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2013.

"'Roof collapses' at West End's Apollo Theatre, serious injuries reported". whatsonstage.com. Whats On Stage. 19 December 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2013 is not "one source". HTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh no i added the Sky one after you removed it and the Playbill source. The whatsonstage was later added to verify the Geilguid as well so aye you were trying to rely on BBC article. Your act of attempting to avoid the subject does not work here and you need to smartly address your edit summaries as they are very misleading and not informative to your fellow editors. Blethering  Scot  22:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

At least my edit summaries - and talk page posts - do not contain falsehoods. Your "Shouldn't be relying one one source no matter if is BBC" summary was made when you added a redundant reference to a version of the article which already contained:

Apollo Theatre balcony collapses". BBC News. 19 December 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2013.

"'Roof collapses' at West End's Apollo Theatre, serious injuries reported". whatsonstage.com. Whats On Stage. 19 December 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2013.

BBC News. Like I said: that's not one source. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're fast showing yourself to be a bit of a false story teller and spraffer to avoid just doing the correct thing and using proper edit summaries and you know it. Get your edit summaries sorted pronto. Eh who added those sources Me not you. Who thinks source or ce covers removing valid sources and edit warring nobody but you. Blethering  Scot  23:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's that proves what I said is true. And you're on thin ice.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Add playbill, you remove saying simply ref, i add sky you remove saying simply ref. Source re added stating we should not rely on one source ( I meant mainly one source) and you remove with simply the quote Ce. These are not acceptable edit summaries at all, especially when edit warring which you know full well you were. I think i initially came very politely to your talk page asking you to improve your edit summaries and you decided to come back with a snippy comment rather than addressing the issue, thats childish and I know your fully aware of that. Why are you trying to deflect the issue constantly wasting everyones time. Sort your edit summaries to help your fellow editors make sense of whats going on in your human head, were not bloody psychic. Blethering  Scot  23:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Once the incident settles down and full information is know the reliance of the BBC source, which is used to back up seven statements, should be reduced using the massive amount of reliable sources which are available. Blethering  Scot  23:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * According to which policy? We already have three (that's three, not one) sources in this short section. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear your becoming rather tedious and still not addressing the issues at hand, not even trying to explain the edit warring or summaries. This should of been over approximately at 22:10 when i asked you to improve your edit summaries in future, simply by saying ill use better edit summaries or simply explaining the reverts which now at 23:48 you still haven't, not once. We should be using multiple reliable sources to verify statements where necessary and not relying heavily (7 statements and rising) on one source when a quick google search reveals over 150 reliable sources which can be used. In return Name a policy thats says we shouldn't be using multiple reliable sources to verify statements especially when living people where injured. There is absolutely no reason when information settles to use some of the other reliable sources to reduce the reliance, not one reason. Blethering  Scot  23:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to have overlooked my question, which was "According to which policy?". HTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You've ignored all my questions to you, re edit warring, poor edit summaries and what policy says you should not use multiple reliable sources to verify information. Im not going to discuss any further with you because you have not shown any sign of sorting your summaries, explaining edit waring or answering the question put to you simply trying to be stubborn and uncooperative. There is absolutely no reason not to add further sources once all settles down and flesh out reducing reliance on BBC source. I plan on doing this as it makes absolute common sense to do so. Blethering   Scot  23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So there's no policy you can cite, in support of your ridiculous assertion? Just the common sense logical fallacy? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You cant name a policy that says we shouldn't use multiple reliable sources to verify the encyclopaedia? Think you can, no. Blethering  Scot  00:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

URL Style
The URL style for the official website in the infobox should be "raw", not the title. This is an exception to the general rule of not displaying raw links. See Infobox theatre, which shows an example and specifically indicates that URL should be used. Also see URL which indicates that the "text" parameter of the URL template is deprecated. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Think i might start an RFC at some point on that, see no reason why that should be an exception to the rule. Especially when its not actually properly depreciated, it works and shows in example how to use it. Blethering  Scot  23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Had you at least read the instructions of the template, you would have done. Deary me, indeed... Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, that's quite clear to anyone who has at least read the instructions of the template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh the instructions tell you how to do it, very clearly. Raw links are not supposed to be used, an RFC is logical. Just grow up. Blethering  Scot  00:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not only URL, but also very unambiguous in Infobox theatre. :See also Template_talk:Infobox_theatre. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So hardly any consensus then at all. Definitely worth an RFC. Blethering  Scot  00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, where on those pages do you seen any dissenting voice but your own? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see virtually no major discussion that would constitute overall consensus, especially not recent and as you should know if you actually read our policies is that consensus can and does change. An RFC is no harm to anyone and firms up consensus either way, if we use raw links for that whats the harm for raw links for everything or vice versa. Sorry but I'm not interacting with you any more, full stop as you are deliberately going out your way to avoid answering your own issues, again edit warring and poor edit summaries and are trying to antagonise and I'm sorry but your a grown adult and know better. Blethering  Scot  00:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See also WP:INFOBOX and MOS:INFOBOX, the latter former which specifically calls out using URL for the website parameter for Infoboxes. (i.e. This is a general Infobox issue). See also other several related discussions at Template_talk:URL. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked you for "any dissenting voice but your own". It seems you can provide no evidence of such. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote
The hatnote had 3 lks that led to articles that are not among the various topics "contending" for the role of primary topic for the title "Apollo Theatre" (or "Apollo Theater"): presumably the contributor was imitating the desirable practice of linking, from the body of an article, to articles whose topics are likely to contribute, for some users, to understanding the linking article's content or context. Dab guidelines, however, require the Dab mechanisms (Dab pages and hatnotes) to stay lean and focused on the task of getting each user to the topic that made them encounter the Dab page or hatnote; access to an article with more info on e.g. the nbrhood whose mention may help some users chose the desired article is just noise for users who need the Dabn mechanism for find the topic that they thot might have the title they "asked for". I've killed the extra lks, and will do the same at Apollo Theater. --Jerzy•t 03:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Clientele shifts?
Might be worth having a section on the shift in clientele over the decades / history;

class(es),

legal restriction periods,

particularly contentious politics of the day that the owners-of / managers of persisted with against the crown, allies of the country, prominent figures, 'ruffling of feathers', whatever,

contributions to particular social issue addressing / debate(feedback/social-criticism),

etc 120.21.132.102 (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"2014themovie" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014themovie&redirect=no 2014themovie] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)