Talk:Shaw Festival

More sources












Promotional-y tone of the article
I noticed that the article sounds kind of like an ad (at least it reads like that to me) so I've made some edits to try and improve that. I'm not sure if there's anyone who has a more active interest in theatre than I do that's watching this page, but I'm attempting to be bold. I took out what I saw as some of the more blatant promotional language here. It's possible I'm wrong about that, I don't have much experience with this sort of thing. I also removed a list of the plays announced for the 2021/2022 seasons under the rationale of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but on second thought I decided to be cautious with the status quo until I hear a second opinion, especially when I reread and noticed a Globe and Mail citation. I'm also going to post a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre to see if anyone there has any input. Clover moss (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Clovermoss I tend to agree. There has been a lot of editing by one IPv6 address on the /64 range over the years, and seemingly based nearby, which suggests undeclared WP:COI editing by someone connected with the theatre. The style of writing is promotional ( e.g."gained huge international publicity and ...garnered sold out performances").  As you say, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY a list of every year's performances doesn't seem justified, though a link to an external source would do no harm if anyone wants to go and look them up. We need to see third party sources talking about the significance of these productions, not the festival's own list of events. Much of the content in the 'History' section is uncited, too, and needs tagging as such, at least. I would be inclined to be bold and move out the productions to Shaw Festival production history but, to be frank, I'm not really sure what value that mostly uncited list page has to offer.  I have tagged it as being of questionable notability. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to attempt to more thoroughly source/expand the history section. There's a ton of news coverage out there about the theatre company, so I think I have a lot to work with. If there is a good reason for the production history being listed, it could be a subsection under the history section? In regards to IP addresses, I'm not very good with the specifics of how they're assigned, but maybe it's possible that more people who are from the general area are editing it? Niagara on the Lake is a town with 17,000 people, so I don't think that's nessecarily an impossible scenerio. It's also possible it's undeclared COI editing, though. Clover moss  (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, you'd know more about IP addresses than I do. I was just thinking that /64 sounded like it could cover a wider area, but I could definitely be wrong. I'm not sure if there's anything to be done at this point regarding COI editing since no one else is really actively editing the article? Apart from removing the promotional text. I think I've got rid of most of it, but I'm also trying to improve the article in general. At least it's not just mostly primary sources now. I'm still working on it. Something I think I've become better at over time is becoming slightly more confident in my abilities, even if I'm not quite at the point where I trust everything I do. I think it's good to keep an open mind to feedback in case I am doing things wrong, though. Clover moss  (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Clovermoss A /64 range for an IPv6 address is just one computer! The smaller the /number, the more users there are ; that may seem counterintuitive, I appreciate. The addresses change dynamically, so theoretically blocking a single address never deals with blocking one user. (Not that I’m talking about blocking anyone here, you understand). Nick Moyes (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Newton quote
I said I'd write something on the talk page in my edit summary, so this is me doing that. I've been rewriting this article in general, but this is something in particular other editors might have opinions about. This was originally an uncited quote. I think I found the source for it, but it's like he's quoting himself in the interview? He might have originally been quoted elsewhere. It's hard to know for sure without being able to confirm with the editor who added the quote in the first place. I'm also not sure of the relevance of the quote. I've decided to remove it for now until I can fix those issues and/or determine if the quote is truly relevant. I'm posting here for transparency, in case it gets lost among the other edits I've been making to the article. Also as a reminder, in case I forget. It might be one of those things that's more clear after a break away from editing. Clover moss (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)