Talk:Scala Theatre

Architect Wyatt
Based on the date, it seems it must have been his father, James Wyatt, no? -- Ssilvers 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Got me, they started them young then ..... Kbthompson 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite tag
Just for my own Wiki-education, what does the cite tag add? -- Ssilvers 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I took most of the text I added from the University websites, I cited them ... the booklist really was a bibliography ... Kbthompson 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, bibliography stuff that is not used in the article should be called "Further reading" (see WP:CITE). But I didn't understand you: Does the "cite" tag that you inserted do anything to the format or content of the notes, or are you saying that it is a signal in the edit text to let you know that these sources are the ones used in the text of the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A long time coming ... the cite tag causes auto archiving of the source web page, it means if it has been deleted it can be retrieved for confirmation. Kbthompson (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah so! Yes, that was a long time coming, but well worth waiting for! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Scala Theatre
[Discussion copied here from my user talk page. --Xover (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)]

Hello, Xover. Please see this change to the hatnote, which you and User:Paul_012 had previously worked on. My understanding is that, once we link the disambiguation page in the hatnote, we should not link to any other specific articles. If that is right, will someone please revert the change and explain it to this relatively new user? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it. Going by "the book" (MOS), the article shouldn't have a hatnote at all. However, I personally think the MOS, in this area, is too focussed on ambiguity of article names, and doesn't sufficiently take into account terms—particularly names of buildings and venues—that, while not strictly speaking ambiguous, are very generic for the reader. In this particular case, a lot of readers, and a lot of books etc., will think of the place as simply "the Scala". So though not literally ambiguous, it will be conceptually so. In short, if anybody wants to add back in a hatnote, I wouldn't object. The MOS says no hatnote here, so we'd have to do it under WP:IAR. --Xover (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also asked for more direct guidance on this to be added to the MOS over at WT:Hatnote. --Xover (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would vote to put back in the link to the disambig page, but not (also) the café. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. But we're pretty deep into article-specific issues now. If you don't object, I propose we move this discussion to the article's talk page to let everyone participate, and to document whatever is the consensus for future reference? --Xover (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd say a hatnote is quite warranted here. "Theater" in US English means "cinema", and Scala Cinema (Bangkok) and Phoenix Picturehouse are both listed in the disambiguation page. There's also Teatro alla Scala, which translated into English would also be Scala Theatre. The ambiguity should already satisfy WP:HAT as it stands. The club, on the other hand, of course shouldn't be mentioned. (Commenting where the discussion currently is but feel free to move.) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I think I disagree with you that WP:HN allows for that (it's focussed mainly on actual article titles that are ambiguous); but I agree with both of you regarding the hatnote as it currently stands per WP:IAR. --Xover (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking it over. For what it's worth I just added the link because as a moron in a hurry I'd skimmed quite far into the article before realising it was talking about a different building from the Kings Cross venue a mile away. "For other uses, see Scala (disambiguation) § Places and buildings." didn't give me any pause to check I was reading about the correct London building because of course there are other places in the world called "Scala". I thought Wikipedia articles tended to have "not to be confused with" links for subjects which can be mistaken for others, so added one. (Checking incoming links, other editors have got them mixed up too.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Belbury, please see WP:BRD, which suggests that once you have made a change to an article, if someone else reverts your change, you should not re-revert, but instead open a discussion. Please also see WP:EDIT WAR.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's your discussion. What do you think? --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Was just revisiting this article when it came up in the needing-a-photo list, and I had to check I wasn't accidentally using a photo of the other London venue that coexisted with it for decades. - any thoughts? Should we explicitly clarify the distinction between this venue and the venue called "the Scala" a mile away from it? --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I still think that the link to the disambiguation page covers it and that it is clear enough because the name includes the word "Theatre". It says, right in the first sentence "former theatre", so that *and* the current hatnote are, I think, clear without cluttering up the top of the page further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence doesn't really clear things up: that paragraph could plausibly end with something about the theatre having later been rebuilt as a music venue called 'The Scala', so a reader without a very sharp grasp of central London street geography will have to read the whole thing before they realise their mistake.
 * Reading up on disambiguation notes WP:1HAT says that picking out a specific is permissible "if the other article could be reasonably expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question". Checking inbound links for modern-sounding names, there was still some confusion, and a Google search for "scala theatre"+"gig" lists plenty of talk of recent performances at London's "Scala theatre". --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

[left]. I don't agree with you, and Xover didn't agree with you, so unless you can build a WP:CONSENSUS for your argument, I'm afraid the current hatnote should stand. Perhaps other contributors to theatre articles will disagree with me? User:Jack1956; User:Tim riley, User:Paul012? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather amused by the proposal. I've lived within 15 minutes' walk of the Scala pop-music etc venue at King's Cross for the last 34 years, and I don't think there is the slightest chance that anyone will confuse it with the old theatre, any more than with the theatre of the same name in Milan. So, no. It's a well meant but ill advised idea.  Tim riley  talk   21:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about mistaking physical buildings for each other, it's about whether anyone would get the name of the other venue wrong. A person who's never heard of the older building may think that "Scala Theatre" is a formal or previous name for the Kings Cross venue, and this is what seems to be happening with incoming links from a few Wikipedia articles, band websites and gig reviews mentioned above. Maybe it's confirmation bias hunting out examples of people making this mistake, but there is provably at least a slight chance of some people believing that the Scala is called the Scala Theatre. --Lord Belbury (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A slight chance is not enough of a reason to clutter up the top of articles. The guideline is clear that it is not "anyone", it must be a reasonable expectation that a "significant number" of readers will look for the Scala club article and find this article instead. I'm afraid that you are not persuading me by finding isolated instances in which someone linked to the wrong article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's about the same likelihood of mistaking this Scala for this Scala or this one, or this one. I agree with Ssilvers about the guideline, and keeping a sense of proportion. The suggested change, though well intentioned, is neither necessary nor helpful, in my view.  Tim riley  talk   07:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ssilvers and Tim riley above on this issue. Jack1956 (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the discussion. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And thank you, Lord Belbury for your gracious response.  Tim riley  talk   19:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)