Talk:Ellie Caulkins Opera House

Removal of text about the electronic libretto system
viva-verdi is using wikipedia to self promote Simultex, A FIGARO SYSTEMS TRADEMARK PRODUCT using wikipedia. It is time to stop this arrogant user to continue with its SELF PROMOTION NOT ALLOWED !!!

In the article Electronic libretto one anonymous editor has persistantly removed text even though several other editors have supported the return of the text and a consensus has been reached. User talk:62.85.192.81 (Talk) has been blocked for doing this on several occasions.

NOW 62.85.192.81 (Talk) repeats his/her deletions here with no justification beyond a posting on his/her talk page assuming that I'm "self promoting" Figaro Systems, the company which produces this system BUT WHICH IS NOT EVEN NAMED IN THE ARTICLE.

'''Again, I'm asking for consensus that this text (which I DID NOT write) be retained. Viva-Verdi 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)





'''::Viva-Verdi 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This anonymous editor cannot provide any evidence for their baseless accusations against Viva-Verdi. The Ellie Caulkins Opera House exists as a fact. It is also a fact that they use an electronic libretto system. All of this is notable in an article on wikipedia. It is a fact that they use the Figaro System. Viva-Verdi has even taken the extraordinary step of not naming the Figaro System in the article. As has been pointed out a consensus has been reached on the subject by several editors. The obsessive quality to 62.85.192.81's removal of these facts calls into question their motive in any edits on this subject. It is time to either protect this page or block the editor in question. I support either option and would ask any admin who comes across this to please look into this situation ASAP. Thanks you for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Editor 62.85.192.81 cannot ask that all three titling systems be listed in this article as this Opera House does not use all three just the one - which, it must be pointed out again, is not named on this page. The motives of this editor must now be called into question and this page should be protected from anonymous IP edits if the editor is not going to be blocked. MarnetteD | Talk 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

More on removal of text-December 2007
This has been posted on User talk:83.225.119.202's page:

"== 29 Dec 2007: STOP YOUR NONSENSE on Ellie Caulkins Opera House == First: READ the TALK PAGE and you will see that there is consensus from more than 1 editor to leave the name of Figaro Systems in the article.

Second: STOP making these anonymous changes. Register, name yourself, and stand up to peer review, instead of snidely making changes and ignoring the comments of other editors.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * We appear to have another anonymous editor (maybe the same one from a different computer) who keeps changing copy supported by at least TWO editors. He/she has been put on notice on his/her page.
 * Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
There are sections of this article that read like promotional copy for the Opera House. I was asked to explain my changes, here are some examples of the material that needs to be cleaned up to meet wikipedia's standards.

To begin with, there are almost no proper references. Statements like "Denver was outgrowing its Municipal Auditorium and, while some wanted to tear it down and build a new one..." need to be backed up, otherwise they are only original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool.

The section on Ellie Caulkins is unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and is lifted directly from a press release. If Mrs. Caulkins is a major figure in opera, as she seems to be, she should have her own article. There's no need to run down her resume here.

The section on the Opera House also reads like promotional copy. "All building elements, from lobby space, concessions and restroom areas to leg room in the seating areas, dressing rooms for performers, and the fly tower for sets and equipment, were designed to provide the best possible audience and artist experiences." That's unreferenced, and seems to have been taken from ad copy. In any case, it's unencyclopedic material.

The entire section on the seat-back tilting is written like ad copy for the company that made the seats. If the company is so notable, they should have their own article, which can be linked here. It's unreferenced and unencyclopedic to have this many details about the seats on this article, and makes it sound like an advertisement for the seat company.

The Kevin Taylor section is clearly advertising, as evidenced by the fact the man has his reservations number listed in the article. That's advertising to the point of spamming, and clearly not encyclopedic. The same goes for the Salon section, details like "the preferred gathering place" and what kind of get-togethers it can accomodate are unsourced, and read like advertising.

There's plenty of good information available about the Opera House, but what we use in this article should be encyclopedic. The article had become a promotional vehicle for the Opera House.

Removed Political Photo
I removed a photo that didn't seem like it belonged on the page. It was of a person with a very inflammatory political sign outside of the Denver Convention Center (not the theater) during the 2008 Democratic Convention. The Opera House was in the background of the picture, but this was very obviously not the focus. I don't know the reasons for putting the picture up, but I don't believe that it is appropriate for the page in question. Does anyone have thoughts? TrippCeyssens (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)