# Talk:Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage

The Stanley Theatre has a lot of history, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any references yet. If anyone can cite information about its glory days as a movie theatre, that would really help the article. Also, if anyone has information about the period when it looked like it was going to be converted into shops (?) and the Save Our Stanley movement to preserve it, that would be helpful too. Thanks—let's make this a really great article! Moisejp 03:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this list should be separated into a separate article as it is getting rather long. Separation wouldn't take anything away from the content of this page as it stands but will make scrolling to the bottom of the page significantly faster. Thoughts? Konnetikut (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you input into the article, Konnetikut. I was wondering about that too. I'm not against separating that part into a separate article. Let's give several days to see if anybody else has any opinions on the matter, and if not one of us can go ahead and split it up. Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just having read the article I don't have a problem with the list being there, and I kinda think it would be nicer to leave it there.  On the other hand I have a fast DSL link, and can see that someone on a dialup might not want to wait for the extra information.  I think it could go either way, but it is still fairly short and doesn't seem bad.  Perhaps someone could experiment with a double-column arrangement with two years side by side. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of separating this part of the article into its own thing.  For that fact that you said it won’t take away from the article and easier scrolling.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will warn you that splitting it into another article is likely to get it deleted. A year or so ago several editors, myself included, worked diligently on a list of the operas performed year by year by the Santa Fe Opera. It lasted for a couple of months but was then deleted for various reasons. I apologize for not being able to provide you a link to that discussion. I just wanted to let you know that it you are more likely to avoid the wrath of the deletionistas if you leave it here. MarnetteD | Talk 22:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking about changing the "Productions and events" list to the format in 5th Avenue Theatre. The advantage of that would be that the different boxes can be shown or hidden, so it'd make the article more compact. (Oh look, the 5th Avenue's "Seasons prior to 2004-2005" part is extra super duper compact.) What do you all think? It'd take some work but I am willing to do it if people think it worthwhile. The only little question I am wrestling with a tiny bit is, is it better to limit it to productions put on by the Arts Club? If so all the sections would be nice and "short & sweet," but less complete. I'm leaning towards including all productions and events, as it is now, but then some years, like 2007, will be a little "long & messy." Not so bad though, and since the different sections can be hidden, it'll be all the neater. Well, any thoughts about all of this before I go ahead and get started? Moisejp (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Stanley Theatre has not been self-supporting financially, but has gotten millions of dollars of direct government subsidy support and grants for more than a decade. Here are some sources, though I couldn't easily find any publicly disclosed budget or financial reports. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

www.city.vancouver.bc.ca
www.bridgecommunications.ca
www.boardoftrade.com
www.city.vancouver.bc.ca
www.boardoftrade.com
www.artsclub.com/about/
www.artsclub.com/support/corporate_partnerships
www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/CTYCLERK/CCLERK/
This is very typical of most regional legit theater companies.  Live productions, especially musicals, are very expensive to produce and operate, and it is rare that a local theater company can afford a ticket price that will cover the production costs, building upkeep, and administration, and possibly leave something left over for new production development. I certainly can't see anything here that would explain the IP editor wanting to delete the theatre history section, unless it was the association (long past) with a tobacco company.  Loren.wilton (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would think they would only have rm'd the mention of the tobacco company then. Looks to me like someone doesn't want readers to see anything about the past government support and subsidies, which have been in the millions (and whatever the IP said, who knows if it was representing the theatre). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that is possible, but if you look at the history of any other regional theater company they show a long list of contributors including various government agencies, and if the theater was a conversion from a movie house (as often is the case) there is almost always a local government contribution involved in the early fund raising.  They almost always have at least a short description of their history including the "saving of the building" in the lobby and often in the program for the current show, often listing the major contributors and total cost.  This case is just plain strange.  I suspect whoever was doing this probably has nothing to do with the theater. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have sent a request for clarification off to the ArtsClub (which currently manages the Stanley) publicity department.  It will be interesting to see if they respond, and what they say. Loren.wilton (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources, Gwen Gale. When I have time I will have a look at them and see if I can find some useful info for the article (or if anyone else wants to, by all means!). Moisejp (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email off to TPTB at Stanley.  Response was:

Thanks so much for your email. We had absolutely no knowledge of this and appreciate you bringing it to our attention. We have no objections to any of the content that currently appears except for that it needs to be updated a wee bit.
I am not sure how to deal these removals of information as I have never dealt with contributing or editing Wikipedia. I was just about to embark on it for my first time! Rest assured though, that these removals are not endorsed by the Arts Club. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
I think we can safely revert any massive removals of information from the article. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's great that is all sorted out. Well, if this page keeps getting vandalized, we could think about semi-protecting it. Moisejp (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Loren for emailing them! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If the vandal returns (and there block should have expired by now) you're best bet will be to report them to WP:AIV rather then trying to semiprotect the page. In my experience pages don't get semiprotected unless they are under attack from several IPs/editors. Of course there is a first time for everything, but, since this is a single purpose IP - that is removing sourced info from this page - just make sure to put warnings up to level four on their talk page and them report them to AIV. They have already been blocked once so amy admin looking at the situation will see the need for further action. Cheers to all for taking care of this page. MarnetteD | Talk 18:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It will probably be a different IP address next time, unless they come back real soon.  That IP is Shaw Cable, which is a major residental provider in the Vancouver area.  However, revert and report will likely take care of the case. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh goodie, he's back.  Same IP and all.  I see RedRocket just reverted his Daily Deletion a little while ago.  Loren.wilton (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added an infobox and logo, but then I noticed maybe it is strange that the infobox and logo call it the Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage, when this name change isn't mentioned until the middle of "Live Stage Years." Do you think the name change should be mentioned in the opening sentences? I hadn't wanted to put too much emphasis on the new name, since it has historically always been known as the Stanley Theatre and only the last three years been the Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage. But maybe with the addition of the logo this name change needs to made clearer at the start of the article. What do people think? Moisejp (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Going by the sources, since 2005 the theatre's name has been the Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage (owning to a $1.5 million donation from Industrial Alliance Pacific LIfe Insurance) and shall be for about the next seventeen years. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hence I've done a page/talk page move to Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage with a redirect at Stanley Theatre (Vancouver). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I really like the changes you made to the lead and captions, Gwen Gale. This article is really coming together! Moisejp (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ta! Hopefully we can get a bit more in (from the sources) about its funding history as a live stage along with some more detail about its operation and cultural role in Vancouver. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That'd be great. I've already added one of the sources you listed above but I don't think I used it to add info about the funding, not yet at least. I went through all those sources and there were a couple of them that looked like they might be useful, but I might need help deciphering some of the technical information in them. When I get a chance I'll go through them again and post my questions here. Yes, also if we could find more information about its cultural role in Vancouver that'd be swell too.
I've pretty much scoured the Internet for all the information I could find (which is not to say I haven't necessarily missed anything). I was wondering whether anyone living in Vancouver (I don't) would want to see if there is any information at the Vancouver Public Library. There have got to be some books there that have lots of info about, for example, its history as a movie theatre.
I was also wondering whether anyone in Vancouver might want to take a picture of the Stanley's Heritage plaque, which could be a nice addition to the article. Or we could try to ask this person if we could use this image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roland/204200/
Here's another really nice one. I was thinking of asking this person if we could use it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianalexandermartin/457140309/
or this one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianalexandermartin/457124708/in/photostream/
There might be some other good ones on Flickr that we could try to ask people if we could use.
Don't want to be too gushing in my thanks, but Gwen also hats off for the clean-up edit. I think it really improves the article. Moisejp (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for saying so :) Happily, it was but a writing thing because the sourcing is so thorough.
Meanwhile... can you think of any way to get a snap or two of the interior? That would be cool! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are some interior shots here (click on View Project): http://lightingdesign.ca/portfolio/perform.html#
and here: http://www.cobaltengineering.com/projects/community-recreation/stanley-theatre/
Is anyone really good at asking for favours? If we asked them nicely possibly they might let us use some of these shots, or they might possibly have others that we could use. Moisejp (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote to Cobalt Engineering to see if they would be willing to let us use any interior shots, and I also wrote to the owner of the Untouchables shots and the owner of the heritage plaque shot. Fingers crossed that we'll be able to some of them! Moisejp (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I got permission to use the plaque picture and have added it to the article. Moisejp (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where the name Stanley came from back in 1930. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I wonder if it is the same Stanley as whoever Stanley Park was named after? But that could just be a coincidence. Moisejp (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, I wonder if it could wind back to Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby who made a noted trip to western Canada in 1889... Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
When I get a chance I will write to the Arts Club to see if they have the answer to this one. I'll also ask them if they happen to have any interior shots of the theatre and/or production shots that they would be willing to let us use. Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
publicity at artsclub dot com.  Loren.wilton (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk). I wrote to them. But then I found the answer myself here: http://www.where.ca/vancouver/article_feature~listing_id~119.htm  It was named after Canadian Governor General Lord Stanley, same as the Stanley Cup and Stanley Park. Not surprising. Well, let's see if the Arts Club gives me the same answer.
I also found this pdf which has lots of historical information about the Stanley's movie theatre years, but I am not sure how much of it is substantial enough to use. But maybe we can find some tidbits in it worth mentioning. I have to have another good look at it later, but now I am off to bed. Here is the link to the pdf: www.southgranville.org/pdfs/ sgbia_newsletter_april2007web.pdf and to the cached html version: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:3IMRhPE0sVEJ:www.southgranville.org/pdfs/sgbia_newsletter_april2007web.pdf+%22Stanley+Theatre%22+%22Henry+Holdsby+Simmons%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&   Moisejp (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I noticed from my research that's a little fuzzy is different people's roles in the fundraising and transfer of ownership to the Arts Club. If we could clarify that in the article, it could be good.
This article: 
http://www.boardoftrade.com/vbot_sb_search.asp?pageID=178&sbsearch=jansson&searchissue=All&ArticleID=913&IssueID=56&offset=&sbpage=SD
says "Declining revenues resulted in its closure in 1991, followed by six years of various groups campaigning to preserve its heritage features and revitalize it for live theatre. After receiving funding from all three levels of government and the private sector, the final effort known as The Stanley Theatre Mortgage Buster Campaign kicked in. Headed by Co-Chairs actor Jackson Davies and Harri Jansson . . ." So there were multiple stages of campaigning and Jackson Davies and Harri Jansson were just involved in the "Mortgage Buster" stage, according to this.
This one:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=3820d6fb-19e6-4b39-9a55-dc59bbd4ecbd
just says that Jackson Davies co-chaired the $9 million campaign.
This one:
http://www.canadiantheatre.com/dict.pl?term=Stanley%20Theatre%20duMaurier%20Stage
says "It was purchased from owners Famous Players by several groups lead by Save Our Stanley (headed by Dr. Tom Perry) and a fund-raising organization including Vancouver Theatresports and the Arts Club. All levels of government kicked in with duMaurier being the lead corporate sponsor." So according to this someone named Dr. Tom Perry was central to the campaigning, but I couldn't find anything else about him and the Stanley. Maybe I'll try again. It also says the Arts Club was involved at the fundraising stage (and I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere else too) but that isn't conveyed in the article as it stands now. I wonder at one point in the fundraising process it became not just an attempt to save the theatre in some way, but it was decided that the Arts Club would be taking over it. Also, I have to track down the reference, but I think I saw somewhere that Bill Millerd of the Arts Club was an important figure in the fundraising.
This article:
http://www.straight.com/article/industrial-strength-sponsor-for-stanley
says that a Harley Harris was the president of the Stanley Theatre Society.
Here:
http://www.straight.com/article/room-to-play-0
it is talking about Jon Stettner (now the Playhouse Theatre Company manager) and says:  "As general manager of the Arts Club Theatre Company in the latter half of the '90s, for example, he helped pull the organization into the black after years of annual deficits and oversaw its acquisition of the Stanley Theatre."
By the way, this point about the Stanley helping save the Arts Club from years of annual defecits could be a good point to mention. Maybe we could link this information with the following from the Arts Club website:
http://www.artsclub.com/about/index.htm
"The Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage opened to the public with Dean Regan's record-setting production of Swing in October 1998, and it is now the company's main venue. An intimate version of a Broadway or London classic theatre, this elegant venue has permitted the company to move into the exciting arena of producing larger musicals, 20th-century classics, and acclaimed productions from around the world." Well, we may have to do more research before we can explicitly say that through its new ability to produce more famous musicals, the Arts Club was able to attract more theatregoers, which helped it get into the black, but it could be something to investigate.
Anyway, if we can sort through what the different stages of fundraising there were, and who was involved at each stage, that could make that section of the article tighter. Anyone want to help out with sorting through that? Moisejp (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, another point to investigate: I have to track it down again, but in one article I read, I'm pretty sure it called the theatre something like the Stanley duMaurier Stage. So at one point, before duMaurier dropped out as a sponsor, there may have been an official or semi-official name change that had duMaurier in it. If so, that might be worth mentioning in the text, if we can find out more info about that. Moisejp (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to suggest this, being Wikipedia, but I could supply names of people that were involved in all of this and could tell you what actually happened.  Unfortunately these would have been the actual people doing the fundraising and running the theater, and not 3rd-hand tales from the local press, so by Wikipedia rules I think this would count as OR and be inadmissable. Loren.wilton (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be OR but... with all your personal knowledge about this, it sounds to me like you're "the one" to weave the public sources into a helpful, steadfast and wholly supported narrative (looks like there's an encyclopedic paragraph or two to be had here). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I know very little of the Stanley in particular, never having heard of it before coming across this article.  I know a lot about legit theater in general, and I know a number of people in the industry in the Vancouver area, who in turn know the people in ArtsClub and the Stanley itself.  Thus I can easily get confirmation checks on what really happened from the people that were actually involved.
I would suggest someone else should continue to work on the article, because I'm frankly too busy with several project deadlines or the next couple months to have more than passing bits of copy-editing and vandal-killing time here.  When the article is deemed 'ready' I can suggest to the people that actually know that they can look at it and give me comments on anything that is notably off-base.  They may also be able to suggest sources in those cases. Loren.wilton (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
After User:Gwen Gale brought this to my attention, I mentioned the situation at the Vancouver meet-up last night.  I believe it's attracted the attention of User:Mkdw; I'll remind him and let him tell you what his interests are in this.  Accounting4Taste:talk 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
On the Heritage plaque it says that a "transferable density bonus was granted by the city to assist with the cost of preserving the building." Here: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/960627/pemin.htm it says "The proposal to develop a 450 ft. high, 600-room hotel tower includes a heritage transfer of density of 44.000 sq. ft. from the Stanley Theatre." I can kind of guess what that all means but can anyone clarify exactly what that means? Loren.wilton (talk), do you know? Moisejp (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Density bonus ordinances permit developers to increase the number of units allowed on a piece of property if they agree to restrict the rents or sales prices on some of the units.[1]
Anyway what a bureaucratic, meaningless artifact of local politics to put on a plaque. It looks to me like at some time there were related plans (one would glark by one of the donors) to build a huge hotel nearby and that project would have in effect been given some leeway under the local zoning laws. It's kinda funny, makes it almost seem as though the donor had so little trust in local politicians, they had to cast the promise in metal and hang it on the wall of the theatre :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think something about this transferable density bonus should be mentioned in the fundraising part of the article. Apparently this deal may have brought the Stanley $1.2 million. There are at least five City of Vancouver council documents that talk about the progress of this deal and when I get a chance I am going to try to sift through these and see what kind of story can be pieced together:
http://www.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/960725/csb1.htm
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/960730/p1.htm
http://www.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/960926/pemin.htm
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/961128/pemin.htm
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/970206/pemin.htm
Moisejp (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)]
Some possibly very useful information here, both about the density bonus and about the Stanley's restoration. I still have to go through it again, but it looks quite promising: http://www.macauheritage.net/vision/pdf/vision_179.pdf
Some other possibly useful ones (about the density bonus): http://www.lestwarog.com/newsArticle-2549.html
http://www.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/980728/p1.htm
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:jLoAz4gClKgJ:www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/980728/p1.htm+%22density+bonus%22+%22Stanley+Theatre%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=safari
Moisejp (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall as a movie theatre the Stanley had a THX Lucasfilm sound system but I couldn't find anthing about it online. If anyone else can find any references about that, cheers in advance! Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this would have been a fairly standard/transparent characteristic for a movie theatre during the Stanley's later life as one. Only to bring it up though, there could be some kind of an inventory valuation/liquidation sheet which has survived from the years when the theatre was closed and later sold. Since goverment funds have been involved ever since, something like that could be part of a public record somewhere and if so, gleaning stuff from it could make for more history. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
THX and Dolby are competing technologies, not the same thing.  Some movies use THX, some use Dolby Labs encoding.  THX certifies every theater install before they allow the place to use the THX logo.  They would probably have a record of whether the Stanley was ever certified.  It no longer is, it would appear from the THX web site.  In fact only three theaters in Canada are.  I don't recall that Dolby certifies, so they would probably not have records easily available.  In any case, it is almost certain it would have had Dolby equipment, and if it had been a first-run house after the invention of THX it very probably would have had a certified THX installation.  (Note that both Dolby and THX films still have analog stereo tracks so that the film is playable in theaters without the fancier sound equipemnt.) Loren.wilton (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I stumbled on the information here: http://web.ncf.ca/az896/03v.htm. And, this page lists about 22 other movies shown at the Stanley between 1983 and 1991! What are we going to do with this info? It's too much to list all of them I guess. Unless we create a separate section of "Some movies shown at the Stanley" like the "Productions and events" section below. But that would probably be too much, huh? It's too bad because it is so exciting to have stumbled on this mother lode of info after having been searching for so long for any movie info I could find. Well, I am going to start by adding some of the bigger names to our existing list, and then we can decide later if there is anything we can do with the other ones. Moisejp (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
From the same source above I also found several movies shown 1954-1974 and 1974-1982, and I tried to select some of the bigger names, and throw in a few "fun" ones. What does everyone think of the list we have right now? Does it need to be trimmed more, or can we make it longer? If anyone wants to go to the sources and add/subtract movies you could. I didn't cut any of the first films I added to the list (The Marrying Man, Dead Again, etc.) because it's nice to have some on the list that come from different sources, but if it is felt these ones are less noteworthy, we could cut them. Oh, but I did cut Star Wars because I felt the reference was weaker than the other ones (it was just relying on one person's memory), and because it wasn't clear if the author of that source saw the movie at the Stanley in its first run or not, and I am trying to keep the films on the list chronological. Here: http://web.ncf.ca/az896/02v.htm it says Star Wars/Empire Strikes back was shown Oct 1, 1982 as a double bill, but I didn't see any mention of Star Wars being shown there in its first run (although it likely was). Moisejp (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Half a thought (or maybe less)!  When the Stanley was a movie house it wasn't the Industrial Alliance Stage, it was the Stanley Theater.  I'm idly wondering about the possibility of splitting the article into two cross-lined articles.  Then there chould be a Stanley Theater article about the movie house that would detail the history up to the point of closure, and noting that it was rebuilt and reopened in XXXX as the IAS, with a wikilink to the current article.  The IAS page would then have about one sentence on the place having been the Stanley Theater (with link to article), mention when it was built and closed, and basically start with the struggles to save the building.  That would allow expanding both sections of the article with a respeciable production list without the lists becoming overwhelming. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That thought crossed my mind too, but right now I don't think we have enough information to make a substantial article out of the movie theatre years part, so I would be against breaking it up until we do. Another idea: we were talking above about the possibility of breaking the list of productions into a separate article, and if we did that we could possibly add a list of movies shown to the same article. But as MarnetteD Talk mentioned, some people on Wikipedia don't like "list" articles, and we would have to be careful to do it right if we did decide to do that, so it doesn't get deleted. Moisejp (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the Stanley Theatre was significantly or widely notable enough for its own article. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started adding information the South Granville Business Association pdf. There's a lot of information in there, and some may be less noteworthy than other stuff. Thinking about the balance of the article, and how much relative weight we may want to give to the different sections, if there is any info I put in the article that you feel is not noteworthy enough, please mention it. I may get carried away with adding information.
How about the first sentence of the Movie Theatre section? Has it become too many references (right now six for 1930 and three for 1931)? If so, one solution would be to just cut a few. Also, like the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia, the South Granville Business Association pdf also gives Dec 15, 1930 as the opening date, so another solution would be to give four sources for 1930, three for 1931 and then say "with some sources giving the opening date as December 15, 1930" and cite those two references there.
Gwen Gale (talk), above you said you would like to find more info about the Stanley's cultural role in Vancouver. In the South Granville Business Association pdf it goes on about that quite a bit, on pages 3, 4 and 7. Myself, I am more comfortable reporting "facts," but if you can find a good wording to talk about its cultural impact, using any of the points mentioned in the South Granville pdf, that would be great. I'm not sure if it is notable enough, but I also found the Stanley was voted the best local arts stage in a readers poll in the Georgia Straight in 2004: http://www.straight.com/article/best-of-vancouver-readers-choices-0  I didn't have a chance to check if it won any other years or if the poll was done other times. Moisejp (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"At times the Stanley was also a live house with vaudeville performers and the Vancouver Little Theatre." This is an interesting little bit of information, but it seems really out of place where it is. Also, from the South Granville pdf it sounds like these live performances were only in the very early days of the theatre. Any ideas what to do with it? We could cut it, or possibly expand it into its own mini-section, or does anybody have any ideas where else we could fit it in? If we decided to expand on it, in the South Granville pdf there is more information about this: "In addition to films, the early days of The Stanley featured live performances:local talent shows were put on, and Vancouver Little Theatre staged productions. The Stanley was also the setting for a brief experiment in silver screen swing: after struggling in Depression-era downtown music halls, the Calvin Winter Orchestra and other musicians moved to The Stanley, playing nightly between films for a wage of six dollars." Even if we expanded on it, we would have to find a good place to fit it in. It kind of disrupts the flow of all the movie information. Moisejp (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and cut the sentence for now, until we can find a home for it. Moisejp (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been searching through the Arts Club website to find information to help bring this article more up to date. There is quite a lot of information, we just have to decide what to use. One thing is that a lot of the info is about both the Arts Club's stages, not the Stanley stage only, but I think we can work with that.

Apparently half of the operating revenue from ticket sales. Other income comes from individual donations, individual patronage (the Artistic Director's Circle) which has different levels of patronage with different benefits, and corporate sponsorsips. There is also a list of current sponsors, and if we wanted to we could list some of the bigger ones.
The Arts Club does a number of community programs, including student matinees, the Understudy program and studentrush.com.
There is information about box office hours and ticket prices and stuff. And they have packages where you can buy multiple tickets at once, and year passes.
The 2008/2009 season is up, so I have to update the Productions and Events part of the article.
Any opinions about what else of this to include? Moisejp (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Or another option would be to update the Arts Club Theatre Company page and include lots of the information there. Moisejp (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I got permission from someone to use several more photos. For now I have put seven of them in a gallery and one more in the Productions and Events section. But I would like to work some of the other seven back into the article. I'm thinking of putting the "Looking North on Granville" one into the Granville Street article with a link to the Stanley article. I wanted to put one of the really nice marquee pictures right at the start of the Stanley article but so far I have been unable to find a nice layout. Another option would be to move or remove the Stanley logo and put a pic in the infobox. Moisejp (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I added captions to the photos in the gallery. I don't think my captions are necessarily very good, so if anyone can improve on them, please do. Also, we don't necessarily have to use all of the pictures, so if it is felt any of them don't add anything to the article, we could cut some of them. Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I slightly reworded the description of the dome image to make it more along the lines of how these images are captioned in magazines that deal with theater tech and architecture.
I have said "view from the stage" but I don't really know if that is true.  It might have been "from the orchestra pit" or "from the front of the house".  If this is correctly known it would be good to make the description correct.  Also, it would be typical to mention the seating in the image: which section is this?  Orchestra, main seating, first balcony, something else? Loren.wilton (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you save your change? I can't see your change on the page's history. Anyhow, I'm guessing this picture was taken from the seats, just based on another picture I have seen where the stage and both levels of seats are visible. This picture would be from the main seating level. Speaking of which, I have been thinking about trying to add this Stanley seating map to the article, but I'm not sure if I would have to go about it as a fair use image or ask for permission to use it as a copyrighted image. I'm guessing the former, but if no one has any ideas I will look into it. Moisejp (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, guess I didn't!  Ok, about the same wording and this time I'm pretty sure it is saved. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the Stanley to the the template of Landmarks in Metro Vancouver (after consulting its discussion group, but there was no response so I went ahead and added it) and then tried to add the template to the article, but it doesn't show. I think maybe I need to add the Stanley's coordinates, because all the articles for the other spots in the template have their coordinates showing. I tried to find the coordinates using WikiMapia.org, but it kept crashing my Safari. Maybe I will try again later. But if anyone else can easily figure it out, that would be really great too. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Here is the link to the template. Moisejp (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I still haven't been able to get the coordinates. Have tried several times, but WikiMapia keeps crashing my Safari. If anyone could help, I'd be very grateful. Moisejp (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
They're embedded in this link. Let me know if you need help with it ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
WP:LEAD needs one more paragraph to describe Live Stage section and its subsection. All citations should follow punctuation marks. All citations should have publishers' info.
I will add another paragraph to the lead and see if I can add more publishers' info to the citations. About your concern that all citations should follow punctuation, do you mean you don't want to see a footnote in the middle of a sentence without a comma before it? If that's the case I can add a few commas where necessary and rearrange some other sentences where a comma wouldn't be appropriate. Just let me know if that is what you mean. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant.--Crzycheetah 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. All footnotes now follow punctuation. Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
And a second lead paragraph has been added. I am still working my way through all the references to add any necessary information. Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I have doubts that Findfamilyfun and an aol member are reliable.
OK, I have replaced/removed the Findfamilyfun references (one was just a back-up for a statement that already had other sources backing it up, so that one I removed, and the other one I replaced). But I think you'll find the aol member source The Review is a serious-minded website dedicated to theatre reviews. Could you have another look at that one? It is also the only site I have been able to find on the web that lists dates for these productions in 1998-1999. Moisejp (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a personal website run by one person. I am still not comfortable with that website, but I'll ask around about that site and get back to you.--Crzycheetah 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Most of the images are here with permissions, I'd like to see them confirmed by someone else. Also, too many images in this page and it violates WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The placement of the Image:Stanley Theatre (2).JPG should be changed because it messes up the page right now. Do not force image sizes per Image use policy: Displayed image size
All right, I have reduced the size of all images to the default thumb size. I have moved the Stanley Theatre (2) image (replaced the logo with it).
Now that the pictures are smaller, does it still seem like there are too many to you? If so I could move one of them to the gallery. Compared with other theatre-related GAs such as 5th Avenue Theatre and Chicago Theatre the number of pictures seems to be about the same, though. Or did you mean some of the pictures in the gallery should go? If so, I would be happy to comply with that.
I don't understand your concern about the pictures' permission. All of them have proper permission.  Stanleytheatrecirca1991.jpg has been released into the public domain, Stanley Theatre Heritage Plaque.jpg is in the Wikipedia Commons, and all of the other ones have their permission archived in the Wikipedia OTRS system and have permission granted under the GNU Free Documentation License. Moisejp (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the gallery section is unnecessary, since there are no text that describes those pictures. As for the permissions, I see that for some of the images, there are permissions archived in the OTRS system, but they're not confirmed yet by our colleagues with the OTRS account; they're listed here.--Crzycheetah 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
All right, so I need to contact one of the permissions-related OTRS people on that list and have the images confirmed? OK, I will do that. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Moisejp asked me to review the OTRS ticket relating to the permission received for these images. Having done so I'm happy that they are available under the GFDL. The images therefore can, and probably should, be uploaded to Commons. Regards. Adambro (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Good luck improving the article--Crzycheetah 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


### Comments
Here are my comments about prose:

There are many instances of over citing and parentheses in the middle of a sentence, could you go over the whole article and fix them? Some examples,
...(due to tobacco regulations) but... - get rid of parentheses and add a comma
Done. I have removed basically all of the parentheses in the article, except the ones in the first sentence and the ones where the multiple showings of Fantasia is described. I feel parentheses are appropriate in these two cases, and especially now that parentheses aren't overused throughout the article, it doesn't hurt to have a couple of places where they are used. However, if you disagree I am open to discussion. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
opened in either 1930,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] or 1931,[9][10][11][12] - I think 2 footnotes for each year is fine. Avoid over citing.
...Henry Holdsby Simmons as the architect,[2][6][7] - Same as above
...(the same stone as used for the Canadian Parliament Buildings) - avoid parentheses
...starring Lillian Gish.[1][2][5][6] - over citing
Done. There are now no more than two footnotes for any point in the article. Also, you'll noticed I changed the sentence about the opening date, which actually I had been thinking about changing anyway, because when I first wrote the 1930/1930 question part, I had an equal number of sources for each, but gradually I found more (and more reliable) reliable sources for 1930. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Instead of listing 24 blockbusters, why not just list five of them, for example, and write more details about them?
Well, the only other information I could give, for some of them, is the dates they were shown at the Stanley. Also for some of them I could mention the type of film technologies they were shown in (Cinemascope, Dolby, THX, etc.) but since the chronology of the film technology development is talked about in the previous section, that would be kind of redundant. When making the list of some movies shown at the Stanley, I was trying to include a few different important blockbusters from different eras (where possible—for the 1930s and 40s I couldn't find very much info about movies shown, so I listed anything I could find—not necessarily blockbusters—but from the 1950s onwards I have more information so I could be more selective). I figured that a lot of people who would be interested in this part of the article would be people who may have grown up in Vancouver and had maybe seen films there, and it might be fun for them to be reminded of some of the various big films that had been shown there in different eras. The Stanley is the kind of theatre that I think a lot of Vancouverites felt was an exciting place to see blockbusters, that people went out of their way to go to experience big movies on a really big screen with a 70mm projector and THX sound. That's why for me this blockbuster part of the article is a key part. However, that is probably not conveyed especially well in the article, and I can understand if someone might take this long list of movies to be meaningless. You suggested I cut down the list to five films. Would you be willing to compromise and find some middle ground somewhere between five and twenty-four? Moisejp (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In 1999 the theatre was awarded a City of Vancouver Heritage Award, [11][47][48] as well as an IES International Illumination Design Award.[47] - it's a one-sentence paragraph, either expand or merge
Done. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The External links section should be the last section per WP:GTL.
Done. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The last suggestion for the future is to create a new page and list all productions there. Now, this list takes a lot of space. I don't mind much, but it may bug some readers. I am going to put this on hold for seven days.--Crzycheetah 07:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. That possibility came up on the discussion page but it seemed to end in no consensus. One editor had had the experience of having their "List of Productions at the _____ Theatre"-type article get deleted, so that was one concern. I am still thinking about doing it at some point, though. One thing, however, is that the list of productions on the Stanley page used to just be an open list, whereas now it is hideable boxes, so if people really don't like seeing the list they can hide the boxes. Moisejp (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Remaining issues
Strong suggestion to use {{cite web}} template for all footnotes/citations. Publishers info is still missing. As for the AOL website, it has to be noted that it is the web page of Ed Forlan, one of the reviewers of www.reviewvancouver.org.--Crzycheetah 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How's the article looking now? I have redone all the references into the template style and have tried to be careful to add all necessary publisher information. Please let me know if I have missed anything or if there are any other outstanding issues that need to be addressed. Thank you very much. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am going to pass this article in a couple of hours. Meanwhile, you could change class="wikitable collapsible" to class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" in those season tables, so that they were "hidden" initially and people who want to see the content could just click on "show"; especially previous seasons' production could be hidden initially. Well, this is a good article and I enjoyed reading it. Thank you for your hard work!--Crzycheetah 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Crzycheetah, I will changed the tables to collapsible collapsed. Great idea. Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. And thank you to everyone who has contributed to it since its inception. Yay! Moisejp (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)