Talk:Walk the Plank (theatre company)

Cleanup tagging

 * This looks to be in some serious need of ad cleanup, several introductory parts have been condensed and promotional tone eliminated. The rest will still need quite a bit of work, however. Seraphimblade 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted. All the deleted matter is relevant information. Unless the matter was written by the theater firm, it is not adspam. Anthony Appleyard 08:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have had my go at NPOV-ifying and removing duplications. Anthony Appleyard 10:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Adspam wasn't really the problem (if it were that I would've likely re-nominated for deletion). The issue is encyclopedic vs. promotional tone-is the information presented in a neutral way with only the most important information, or is it a "list of services" such as one would find in an advertisement? This is the main thing to look at. Seraphimblade 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than engage in edit war here, I've filed for a third opinion. Seraphimblade 02:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Creative ethos - Company culture and the house style
The entire section Creative ethos - Company culture and the house style ought to be deleted, it looks like it was copied right off a promotional website. Which would bring it into conflict with both guidelines on style, and copyright. Can we delete that? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, not sure about a copyvio but it's certainly promotional. Any opinions on the rest? Seraphimblade 04:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do believe the recent deletion of the above mentioned section made the article much better - what it needs now is practically wikifiying and a lot of references. But, eh, the talk page doesn't tell much of the earlier conflict - what more was disputed? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mainly the stuff like this and this, I've been attempting cleanup but seem to get reverted at every step. I also disagree with the edit summary which states "Keeping info is more important than essay style; sorry"-especially when much of the info desiring to be kept is unreferenced and is still unreferenced when reinserted. Seraphimblade 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * well, "essay style" is to be maintained at all times. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A compromise could in the case of your first diff perhaps be to keep the section on the boat, but modify it heavily in order to go with style guidelines etc etc. In the case of the second diff, just cut the list. It's not needed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pending any arbitration I reverted, and then the two deleted queried lengths of text. There is no need for so many "fact?" tags: all or most of the info queried is on their website, which is linked to at the end of the article. Anthony Appleyard 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The material that has been commented out is more promotional than encyclopedic in tone and should be deleted. I also think the History and WTP Pyrotechnics sections should go.
 * As far as the fact tags, I don't think it is for the person who added the questioned text in the first place to decide that they are not necessary, and it is not for other editors to guess the source. If the information came from the web site, then it is easy enough to add a citation rather than deleting the information. Grouse 10:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a rough consensus on deleting the sections and keeping the fact tags, so I reverted it to that. I also added an unreferenced tag. Anthony Appleyard, while it may be so that the info is on their website, specific references are needed - if they are there, just go find them and cite them. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)