Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stagecraft/Archive 1

message: Not too good at the ol' wikipedia, but i work in the theatre industry every day. Hope i didn't do anything wrong, and i hope that this is where i'm supposed to put this. Anyways, i can assist in any way possible. I am the Regional Outside Sales Rep for the largest ETC Dealer on the Gulf Coast. Let me know how i can help.  --Tegsirat 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a first good step is to always sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~.  That way people know who left the comment and when.  Welcome aboard!  --Lekogm 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk

message: I got a few photos of lighting instruments and some other stuff, see them here and some of them need cropping, etc. Is there anything else needing a/better photos because I can probably get it soon. KeepOnTruckin 23:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos on stagecraft pages

message: Ok, there are a few of us who are technically stagehands but would prefer to be called theatrical technicians. see :Category:Wikipedian theatre technicians We have a userbox: .  Good job on making a stage craft ( prefer the term Tech Theatre) catgory. May I suggest a different image for our stub and a link on the stub to the category? KeepOnTruckin 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk

message: Ok, so what do we all think the first step should be?  I think we should come to some sort of agreement on what to do first and then do a big push.  Any thoughts? --Lekogm 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have downsized the list of open tasks on the project page to reflect projects that are already active or that I felt are easy to create.  If anyone has any other projects they're working on or are looking for something to do, let's start with those.  I'll make a better todo list or something later today.--Lekogm 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First step

message: Whats the deal with the new tag image? I liked the old one and this new one makes me think of a project on tools rather than stagecraft. KeepOnTruckin 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old one made me think more of lighting than anything else.  I felt that with an image of a wrench and a screwdiver, things we all use, it might look to be than just lighting.  Feel free to change it back if you want, I just wish we had an image that covered like... everything.  --Lekogm 01:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banner Image

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Stagecraft WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Badbilltucker2 23:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to list them, but a few questions.  The Stage lighting instrument article has a stub template on the bottom.  I'm not sure if that's supposed to mean that the whole article is a stub (which it clearly isn't) or whether it's referring to that specific section.  And I'm not sure whether you're referring to them on the basis of their quality or their importance or both.  It would be really essential to know, particularly as there is a (slight) chance in the near future we (me) might try to get at least members of various groups together to work on articles which are of "top" importance to at least one of them.  So please indicate which articles (or even stubs) you consider to be of "top" importance and highest quality separately.  Thanks again.  Badbilltucker2 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: I would nominate the Stage lighting instrument article as well as the Stage lighting article. --KeepOnTruckin 01:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to list them, but a few questions.  The Stage lighting instrument article has a stub template on the bottom.  I'm not sure if that's supposed to mean that the whole article is a stub (which it clearly isn't) or whether it's referring to that specific section.  And I'm not sure whether you're referring to them on the basis of their quality or their importance or both.  It would be really essential to know, particularly as there is a (slight) chance in the near future we (me) might try to get at least members of various groups together to work on articles which are of "top" importance to at least one of them.  So please indicate which articles (or even stubs) you consider to be of "top" importance and highest quality separately.  Thanks again.  Badbilltucker2 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominations of Stagecraft Articles

message: The following is a list of open tasks taken from the project page and may have a little more in depth details about the article and its progress.
===Stagecraft===
===Theater Personnel===
During disucssions over merging stagehand and theatrical technician have come to discussing setting it up like stage lighting instrument and having a description and then links to individual articles.  Thoughts? --Lekogm 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm strongly opposed to having parts of the decription in two seperate places. Either the articles should be deleted in favor of a list of shorter description, or it should be a lits of liks (maybe a category?) It would be smart (imho) to discuss some thing applicable to all types of stagehands in the article. 48v 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I favor the description is because if someone comes and looks at just a list they're going to have to read a lot of articles to see who builds a chair when they could just see something that says like, "Props carpenter: Builds furniture and small things used by the actors in the course of the show."  Or something like that because otherwise you read an article about carpenters that doesn't even mention props.  --Lekogm 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: On the talk page for stagehand I just posted about merging both articles with list of theatre personnel and then editing that to include all postions, anyone not involved in this discussion want to weigh in?--Lekogm 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the article pages, I have changed the mergeto and mergefrom templates to reflect merging Stagehand with Theatrical Technician which seems to be the consensus.  --Lekogm 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that we have lots of little pages about cirtain types of people. If you merge these many people into the one article (List of theatre personel) then that page is going to be extremly long. I am not in favor of having a long page/list of people working in a theatre, espescially if we merge all the little articles into the one big areticle and get rid of the rest. That would be like taking the stage lighting instruments page and not having any links to the main article on each type of instrument. Again I'd say make it like the SLI article. Leave each little page about personell like it is, except for the ones that we are discussing merging, i.e, Theatrical Tech and Stage hand, ME and Electrician (theatre) etc. etc. SOrry if thats a bit confusing. KeepOnTruckin 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone could find a better way to explain the reflector, that would be great JWGreen 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will make an attempt. Plus today I will try to get a picture of the reflector. KeepOnTruckin 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've made an effort to make the reflector explanation a bit less technical... how does it sound?  Happy-melon 18:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say trash lighting fixture.  There's no useful information on it.  I also would support a rename for the SLI page to "Stage Lighting Instruments" as it should be plural.  --Lekogm 04:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done.  Renaming Stage lighting instrument to Stage lighting instruments is prohibited by the Manual of Style.  Sorry to rain on your parade...  Happy-melon 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think it is allowed due to the fact that it's talking about more than just a singular stage lighting instrument.  See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/archive5#SOME article titles should be plural for more info.  --Lekogm 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Task Discussion

message: During disucssions over merging stagehand and theatrical technician have come to discussing setting it up like stage lighting instrument and having a description and then links to individual articles.  Thoughts? --Lekogm 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm strongly opposed to having parts of the decription in two seperate places. Either the articles should be deleted in favor of a list of shorter description, or it should be a lits of liks (maybe a category?) It would be smart (imho) to discuss some thing applicable to all types of stagehands in the article. 48v 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I favor the description is because if someone comes and looks at just a list they're going to have to read a lot of articles to see who builds a chair when they could just see something that says like, "Props carpenter: Builds furniture and small things used by the actors in the course of the show."  Or something like that because otherwise you read an article about carpenters that doesn't even mention props.  --Lekogm 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of theatre personnel|Theater Personnel]]

message: So on the stagehand article page, I posted how I am interested in merging Theatrical Technician with it and am talking about how IATSE determines postions and whatnot.  How do we want to classify positions for the "backstage crew" of shows?  Should they be called stagehands or should they be called something else?  --Lekogm 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the talk page for stagehand I just posted about merging both articles with list of theatre personnel and then editing that to include all postions, anyone not involved in this discussion want to weigh in?--Lekogm 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the article pages, I have changed the mergeto and mergefrom templates to reflect merging Stagehand with Theatrical Technician which seems to be the consensus.  --Lekogm 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Stagehand]] and [[Theatrical Technician]] Merger

message: I would say we should evaluate how complete this article currently is and then merge it into List of theatre personnel.  Thoughts? --Lekogm 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that we have lots of little pages about cirtain types of people. If you merge these many people into the one article (List of theatre personel) then that page is going to be extremly long. I am not in favor of having a long page/list of people working in a theatre, espescially if we merge all the little articles into the one big areticle and get rid of the rest. That would be like taking the stage lighting instruments page and not having any links to the main article on each type of instrument. Again I'd say make it like the SLI article. Leave each little page about personell like it is, except for the ones that we are discussing merging, i.e, Theatrical Tech and Stage hand, ME and Electrician (theatre) etc. etc. SOrry if thats a bit confusing. KeepOnTruckin 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Running crew]]

message: Probably needs cleanup.  Made it in two hours.
:If someone could find a better way to explain the reflector, that would be great JWGreen 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will make an attempt. Plus today I will try to get a picture of the reflector. KeepOnTruckin 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've made an effort to make the reflector explanation a bit less technical... how does it sound?  Happy-melon 18:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Source four]]

message: Luminaire redirects to Lighting fixture, which is really a crap page. I don't even think it needs to be merged, just the redirect fixed to point all links to Stage Lighting Instrument. (Which IMHO should be plural, don't know why someone changed it). I esp. say delete it b/c it creates confusion with Light fixture which are the normal type of light. BTW, that page has the link set to SLI not Lighting fixture. So, does anyone think there is anything worth keeping on the Lighting fixture page? KeepOnTruckin 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say trash lighting fixture.  There's no useful information on it.  I also would support a rename for the SLI page to "Stage Lighting Instruments" as it should be plural.  --Lekogm 04:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done.  Renaming Stage lighting instrument to Stage lighting instruments is prohibited by the Manual of Style.  Sorry to rain on your parade...  Happy-melon 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think it is allowed due to the fact that it's talking about more than just a singular stage lighting instrument.  See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/archive5#SOME article titles should be plural for more info.  --Lekogm 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Stage lighting instrument]] and [[Lighting fixture]] merger

message: Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stagecraft/Breakdown as originally intended. Thanks Lekogm 
Morydd 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakdown 

message: Ok, I'd like to propose that the article that is currently written there be merged into SLI and that Intelligent lighting be written to include moving lights, scrollers, color faders, amd other things that are data controlled.  I thought I would post this here first to test the water before I post it on the actual talk/article page for those articles, who's got comments?  --Lekogm 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what to say. IL is not like the respt of the pages on types of lights. But SLI already has a little bit on IL with a link to the main article. I don't see whats wrong with it. KeepOnTruckin 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with adding scrolers, colour faders etc to the Intelligent lighting article, but I would strongly oppose merging the existing article with SLI.  The text of Intelligent lighting has been merged from three separate sources already.  The purpose of SLI (as I understand it) is to provide a summary of each type of light which is expanded upon in the main article.  Incorporating the substantial body of text which currently resides in Intelligent Lighting will skew the balance of SLI agianst 'dumb' fixtures; losing most of the IL text in the transition destroys a lot of good material (and I can say that without any blushing because I merely assembled it).  Add information to Intelligent Lighting about other data-based lighting instruments if you wish (indeed I'll help you do it!), but I would fiercely oppose a complete merger.  Happy-melon 20:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Intelligent lighting]] merge and rewrite proposal

message: Now that we're getting rolling our talk page will be, and is, overflowing with discussions about this project.  Therefore, I have created subpages for individual areas to discuss work on articles in those area.  They are: lighting, audio, carps, and props.  I think that any new discussions, after Monday September 25, 2006, on these topics should be on those pages, so as to keep it a little more organized.  I have also created a general discussion page to discuss strategy, article assessment, collaborative efforts and general chatter.  If people want to discuss changes to the main article page or templates than I would say that that can go on this page.  Thoughts?  --Lekogm 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember to add these pages to your watchlist. -JWGreen 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Project Specific Sub Pages

message: So lately I've been looking at other projects banners for talk pages.  Right now I'm really liking the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Novels  banner.  It includes the assessment rating, an importance rating, and a list of tasks that need to be done project wide.  I think I'm going to try and make something similar to that for our banner.  Anyone have any thoughts on things for a revised banner? Lekogm 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The project banner now has a quality rating as well as an importance rating.  --Lekogm 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Banner

message: Heya, I don't know how many people actually are watching the subpages so I thought I'd post this here as I'm going to update members to to participants and have it reflect active and inactive participants.  I just wanted to do a quick roll call and see who's active and what they're currently working on.  I'm working on project specific items such as our banner, , and creating a sub page for assessment.  Next I'll probaly start on some infoboxes, specificly one to map a production trail, and some other templates.  If anyone has any comments/suggestions  for anything like that just leave a message on my talk page and I'll be sure to do my best to incorporate them into what I'm doing.  On a personal note, there are a ton of people up on the roof above my head and they woke me up 2 hours before I would normaly get up.  I have the biggest headache right now that I can remember having in awhile.  --Lekogm 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in. I've started a jargon page in my personal space, haven't gotten very far with it so far. I'll have a good chunk of time to work on it next week I think and get it to the point where it can (if people think it's appropriate) go live. I'm still pretty new to the whole editing concept, so I'm a little overwhelmed with the choices. If there's something we'd like to see done, let me know and I'll go for it. Morydd 21:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: October Roll call

message: User:Morydd had made a brief mention of covering venues in this project.  I was just wondering if we should persue that.  Talk amongst yourselves.  --Lekogm 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets do it now. (My answer to everything) KeepOnTruckin 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been four days since I asked this question.  Does anyone else want to weigh in on this or should I just assume people either agree or don't care?  --Lekogm 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sports venues have articles, so the only problem I see with starting venue articles is that there are so many theatres and how would you define notability... is a community theatre notable? a college theatre? Regional Performing Arts Center?  If we can define what is notable and what is not so we don't have a never ending list, I think it is good idea.  -JWGreen 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it should be limited to regional theaters and roadhouses.  --Lekogm 00:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I say we go for it. -JWGreen 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venues 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory