Talk:Golden Bough Playhouse

By Candlelight

I believe it is incorrect to state Kuster translated "By Candlelight." I used to live in Carmel and was told by officials at The Golden Bough Playhouse that By Candlelight was by P. G. Wodehouse.

This link: http://tactnyc.org/salon_show.php?sid=29&id=330 contains the following statement:

"The play was adapted from the German language Kleine Komoedie by the playwright Siegfried Geyer. Set in Vienna around the turn of the century, the play was performed in the Weimer era at the Deutsches Nationaltheater in 1927. Brought to London in a translation by Graham John, the play was first produced in English, but under the title By Candlelight. Prolific producer Gilbert Miller changed the title to Candle-Light after hiring Wodehouse for the new translation."

I was always curious why the current Golden Bough company didn't hold a By Candlelight festival, remount the play for a weekend, and hire the town and fire department to stand guard during the entire period, to shake off the apparent curse of this play. It was while exploring this idea that I found out which "By Candlelight" was involved with the two previous fires.

I am not adding this information to the article because I am not familiar enough with the attribution rules, but perhaps someone can take what I've put here and insert the relevant information. roricka 17 Feb 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roricka (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The program from the 1949 production states "Adapted by Edward Kuster from the German of Siegfried Geyer."[1] The blog which contained that image also has an unsourced quote which refers to Kuster as translator.[2] That probably doesn't meet the reliable source standard, but it does seem to indicate that this translation is separate from Wodehouse's translation. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 21:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-compliant non-free files removed

I have removed several non-free files for failing WP:NFCC. They do not meet the requirements set forth by WP:NFCC. The files fail WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Do not re-add, if you want the removals reviewed file a WP:NFCR, where they will tell you the same thing. Yes the files are interesting and make the the article look better but they do not meet policy. If the files are re-added without a NFCR supporting the usage I will file an WP:ANI request for the user in question to be blocked for non-compliance with WP:NFCC. Just because you have a rationale doesnt mean that the file is acceptable. Werieth (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This user was blocked indefinitely for abusive behavior, of which the above threat is an example. If the images did in fact meet the standard of WP:NFCC, please feel free to add them back. However, if they were indeed non-free content, please don't. Wikipedia needs to use free content in order that it may be distributed freely. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 02:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golden Bough Playhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708111932/http://www.californianprepress.com/thecalifornian/specialsections/uploads/ads/NonProfits05/NonProfit09.pdf to http://www.californianprepress.com/thecalifornian/specialsections/uploads/ads/NonProfits05/NonProfit09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708111932/http://www.californianprepress.com/thecalifornian/specialsections/uploads/ads/NonProfits05/NonProfit09.pdf to http://www.californianprepress.com/thecalifornian/specialsections/uploads/ads/NonProfits05/NonProfit09.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theatrebayarea.org/programs/dir_dtl.jsp;jsessionid=11D38642EF873EC493BC7F707A1CE1D4?id=915&hi=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD

If you think this article needs to be evaluated via an AfD, please nominate it. Wholesale redirecting it to another article without discussing it first, however, is not so good. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned Article

Redirecting this article to the Kuster article doesn't make sense. The Golden Bough has an ongoing history not associated with Kuster, who died decades ago. This article should be left intact and allowed to grow with the future of the Golden Bough, and the Kuster article should just have Kuster info.user:smatprt

Undisclosed paid editing

The user Smatprt, whose authorship represents >1/3 of the contents has a major COI with the topic, who also started this article. Private evidence submitted to appropriate place. Just noting this in order to explain the tag on page. Graywalls (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Paid editing accusation

Paid editing accusation [edit] Repeating post from other affected pages.

I see this notice has been placed: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view."

As the subject of the accusation, should this be discussed here? I am not and have never been a paid editor, nor am I paid to contribute to any articles whatsoever. Also - what is the offending passage or passages? Where is there a conflict of interest related edit, even broadly interpreted? Thanks! Smatprt Smatprt (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Notability/Merging concerns

@Melchior2006, Graywalls, Ssilvers, GentlemanGhost I just took a look at the Golden Bough Playhouse and Forest Theater articles and I think both are clearly independently notable. Both theaters have been officially recognized by both state and national government bodies as a historically significant theatre in Carmel ( "Historically significant" is an official designation recognized/bestowed by the U.S. Department of the Interior which is achieved through the filing and acceptance of a Historical Context Statement with the National Park Service which was successfully done by the city of Carmel) which means if either theater were ever to be torn down by law some sort of recognition of its historic significance such as a monument or other permanent way of appreciating its historical significance must be erected at that exact location in recognition of the historic theaters. There are two WP:PRIMARY sources verifying that already in the Golden Bough Playhouse article (both which also include the same designation documentation for the Forest Theater as the documents cover every historically significant site in the city of Carmel), and this newspaper article also does for the Golden Bough Playhouse https://carmelpinecone.com/061222PC.pdf (although it gets some of the technical things wrong and could be clearer). That's enough to prove both theaters pass WP:NBUILDING at AFD. We generally keep any structure with "historically significant" designation recognized by the National Park Service/U.S. Department of the Interior under that WP:SNG. I'll work on adding more book sources and journal articles tomorrow, and double check that facts are accurate and not being misrepresented in both articles. In spot checking, the articles so far check out to the cited materials. I already expressed my concerns on a merger at User talk:Melchior2006.4meter4 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, 4meter4 for your hard work. I agree that both articles are independently notable, and I will help with copy editing and will also look for good sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Two months ago, I had reversed a merger of this article to Edward G. Kuster. However, my undo was undone and the merger reinstated, and it was explained to me that the removal was part of an effort to undo an overgrown walled garden planted by User:Greghenderson2006. I was not particularly satisfied with the result of the merge, believing the there to be enough evidence that the building is notable for more than just its association with Kuster. But I wasn't about to start breaking 3RR, so I let it go. Thanks for digging into it. Hopefully, we can arrive at something that's well-sourced and more than just a blank page. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 05:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

We're not on the same page with "notable". When you're unwilling to provide best three to help others see notability, I question why. As @Melchior2006: said somewhere , you provided impressive list of sources, but that's not always meaningful. When a several very large slabs of Walnut wood is requested, a truck load of trimmed pieces of the same kind wood from the saw mill is never an acceptable alternative. When a large load of trivial coverages are presented, it works similarly. I'll also @Timtrent, Netherzone, and Left guide: as they're quite familiar with the long term concerns of inflated notability in the area of Carmel and Monterey County related matters. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls I notice that you ignored the fact that a widely cited WP:SNG argument which is routinely made at AFD discussions is met. This doesn't bode well for a productive conversation. I also notice that you WP:CANVASSED a bunch of editors to this discussion which I don't think is ok. Pinging outside editors to a notability or merge discussion to try and influence it is not cool (particularly when they are already prejudiced in a certain direction due to coi editing and claims of a walled-garden at a noticeboard discussion connected to this article; this is clearly a violation of WP:INAPPNOTE/ WP:VOTESTACK and I am contemplating reporting it). Additionally, WP:THREE is an essay. It's not policy, and it is a poorly conceived opinion piece which tries to reduce notability evaluation into a mindless formula devoid of context and nuance, and which directly contradicts policy language. I'm not going to re-hash this with you again on THREE; it's WP:BLUDGEONING behavior that is now approaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. We have WP:SNGs and WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG for a reason. I will happily frame my arguments using policy language. I am not going to allow you to pigdeon hole a notability discussion inside an arbitrarily designed construct which doesn't have wide community support. There is a reason THREE has never been adopted as official policy and has remained an essay attributed to a single author. Additionally, I disagree fundamentally with the way you evaluate content in the performing arts, and its obvious you have never actually read a performing arts encyclopedia or journal because some of the content you are objecting to (for example this) is exactly the kind of content routinely covered in fine arts encyclopedias and academic literature (such as repertoire and lists of productions staged at a theatre). That content should be included in wikipedia's coverage per WP:5P1 as our coverage should reflect "specialized encyclopedias".4meter4 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4 I think I am perfectly capable of making my own mind up when pinged to have a look at something. Not all of Henderson's work has been difficult to swallow. It's right that a bright light is shone on it. The outcome of shining that light is by no means always the same, nor should it be. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi @Drmies, was I out of line with regard to CONVASSING here? I'm aware of convassing rules and I'm not trying to do something that's considered inappropriate canvassing. I was trying to engage editors who have actively participated on these articles, and the related matters as well as being familiar with them. When done so openly, in discussion, on article page. I also included an explanation why they were notified. I think it was clear in my message they're not asked to do anything or encouraged to voice things in any particular direction. Graywalls (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls For my part I feel notified, not requested to take any action. I am grateful to see this article. I have always chosen my own path. Sometimes you and I agree, at other times we differ. That is as it should be. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to dig into the history here but your linked note to me is not canvassing. It's the talk page cousin of a Project note of "Hey, here's something you might be interested in looking into and why". The editors can follow your link or not, you're not asking a specific action of them. Star Mississippi 01:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls Setting aside the potential for huge disagreement over Henderson's doing his best to boost Carmel, we need to pull the few grains of wheat from the enormous left over heap of chaff. There are some. He had to get some right. This one is, in my view, not yet right.

The tone is that of a magazine, which can and should be rectified. I believe that it has been padded out with a great deal that is not notable. The building, however, seems to be. I am not happy with all of the references, but sorting out the text will handle much of that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree the article needs editing for WP:TONE.4meter4 (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4 Tone îs a good place to start. Dealing with that is likely to address a good number of concerns, leaving any remaining issues to be discussed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow I am going to go through JSTOR and PROQUEST and see if I can improve the sourcing. There are few book sources I used while working on Pacific Repertory Theatre that I can add as well. I think improving the sources should solve a lot of issues too.4meter4 (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I wish your endeavours well, 4meter4. Salvaging the useful material from the onslaught of a difficult editor is a worthwhile thing. So, too, is removing the unsalvageable. Wikipedia is improved by each action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

4 articles

As it can be seen, I have recently drawn the conclusion that the same editors Golden Bough Playhouse, Pacific Repertory Theatre, Carmel-by-the-Sea and Forest Theater have been editing the same 4 articles here at WP in a manner that constitutes COI, WP:FLUFF, fan driven and WP:PROMO and is in no way in keeping with encyclopedic entries. Regardless of whether the individual pages are notable for stand-alone articles at WP, a hard scrub needs to be instituted at all 4 articles. An article on Theaters at WP should be historic only; not filled with staffing issues, endless lists of seasonal productions, etc. If the same editors keep editing in this manner, a page protection will be instituted or a temporary block may be called for. Maineartists (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists I think making threats on blocks over WP:CONTENT disputes is highly unethical. If this type of WP:Bad faith behavior continues I will take this WP:ANI. Additionally, in this case we have a group of notable topics which have been heavily edited by an editor with an alleged coi. This has colored the responses unfairly to how these articles are being evaluated both for notability and what kind of content belongs in them. What I find particularly disturbing is how longtime wikipedians involved in theatre wikiprojects who routinely edit in this area are now being treated when they are coming in to edit and improve these articles and express normal opinions about what belongs in articles of this kind. Much of the content being objected to (such as repertoire and production lists) would be routinely found in a "specialty encyclopedia" entry on a theatre. Per WP:5P1 we model our content placed in theatre articles off of performing arts encyclopedias which do include this type of content (although not exhaustively).4meter4 (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 wrote: "If this type of WP:Bad faith behavior continues I will take this WP:ANI." Please do. I welcome more eyes on this current discussion and dilemma occurring at all four articles. I think you'll find though there is more than enough justification with the history summaries resulting in editors who are trying to clean up these articles with those who are constantly editing disruptively through reversion. As you will note, I have yet to edit anything on any page. But let us set that aside for a second and just focus on one point that you raise, you are mistaken if you believe that listing non-notable productions Pacific Repertory Theater: Notable Productions in such a fashion is encyclopedic at WP in any manner. There is absolutely nothing notable for inclusion in this paragraph: "In 2003 PacRep continued its Royal Blood play series with Part 1 and Part 2 of Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy of plays. That same year the company presented a revival of Euripides' Medea, which was the final production staged by director Joseph Chaikin before his death later that year. Also in 2003, the company revived Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story; a production that it repeated in 2004. In 2008, PacRep premiered Curtain Call by Gary Goldstein, who had won the Hyperion Playwriting Competition; a national competition instituted by PacRep. Some other plays produced by the company include Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman (2006), Yasmina Reza's God of Carnage (2012), and Cyrano de Bergerac (2017)." And if you think there is, (with all due respect) you should not be editing articles on Theaters at WP. This is strictly promotional, resume-like, and puffery writing. Period. Just because a newspaper announces, covers or even reviews a production (which every newspaper in the USA does for even the smallest community theater) does not mean it is a notable source warranting inclusion. I would recommend, as I said on another Talk Page to you, research other regional Theatres at WP to see how they are constructed and you will find a stark difference. Maineartists (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

At this point I am not going to engage with you further, beause A. I don't think you are able to engage in this content area neutrally and you clearly have an agenda which isn't about improving this article. B. it's clear you didn't read the sources. C. It's clear you didn't notice that many of these sources are national or state and not local. For example, one is a national theatre magazine, others are San Francisco and Los Angeles papers which are not really close to Carmel. This isn't local paper covers local theatre coverage. This is paper from a different city writing a review on a production which demonstrate; regional/state/national coverage which matters. Further, local critics sometimes have the best insight as to what is notable in a particular theatre company's history. Just because a local news source covers it doesn't make it irrelevant. Lastly, I fail to see how listing the productions staged at a theatre is a "resume" (people have resumes; not theatre companies) or irrelevant to the history of a theatre company. Fundamentally one can't write on a theatre company without discussing the plays/ musicals etc it has performed. 4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 wrote: "I fail to see how listing the productions staged at a theatre is a "resume" (people have resumes; not theatre companies) or irrelevant to the history of a theatre company." Theatre companies most certainly do have resumes. That's the problem. You are not writing about a theatre company. You are writing about a theatre. That is the difference. You have mistaken the historic aspect with the production aspect. You have listed productions with sources that support their happening, but have not supported the "reason" why they are notable for inclusion as content. Just because a different city write a review about a production is not notable. It happens all the time i.e. Broadway World, for instance. "Just because a local news source covers it doesn't make it irrelevant." No. But it doesn't make it notable for inclusion. Just because it's covered, doesn't make it notable. "Lastly, I fail to see how listing the productions staged at a theatre is a "resume" ... " Please find other theatres at the regional / community level at WP that list productions and staffing / directorial issues in this manner to support your editing process. Not theatre companies, but actual theatre / theaters: i.e. Alabama Theatre (Houston), Alliance Theatre, Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park. Even when theatres list premieres (which are notable), they do it correctly: Berkeley Repertory Theatre. You have not proven why your content is notable. You just list. For instance: why is this notable: "In the 2009 season, the first full season under Kelleher's artistic leadership, he directed a 14-member adaptation of Man of La Mancha, the controversial David Hare play, The Blue Room, Hamlet and As You Like It." No one is arguing the notability of: "The European Foundation for Quality Management studied PacRep in a case study on financing for non-profit organizations which was originally published in 2006 in Above the Clouds: A Guide to Trends Changing the Way We Work: a Project, and again in that works 2017 re-publication by Routledge." But why is this notable: "In 1997 the company produced a revival of Jean Anouilh's rarely performed Ardèle."? It's not. It's just listing and puffery. Plain and simple. Maineartists (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:Notability and WP:NEVENT which points to broader non-local coverage as a sign of notability. Our policy language indicates coverage at a state-wide or national level is notable. I think is a good measuring stick for content inclusion. Lastly, please don't bring up PacREp content on this talk page. These are two very different articles. One is on a theatre (ie a building) and the other is on a theatre company (an organization) which are two very different things with different notability guidelines and content inclusion practices. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

So, if merge can not be agreed upon, the latter should be deleted if it can not meet WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 The initial topic of this thread was to link the cross editing for the 4 corresponding articles. Nothing else. Agreed to keep the above to PRT. However, editing on this page does still include COI. Maineartists (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists I'm done with this content thread as it is too stressful for me to work in this atmosphere. I'm taking the GBP off my watchlist, and no longer plan to be involved in editing these pages. I wish you well.4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)