Talk:Little Theatre

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Little Theatre (disambiguation) → Little Theatre — Move disambiguation page to simplest name for disambiguation page, after having moved the Rochester, New York one that had occupied that to a more specific name. No one of many Little Theatres is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE, unless it would possibly be the London, England one. --doncram (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't think any one threatre can take claim, so a dab. page seems like the best option.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. There's no obvious primary meaning - UK Google gives ten separate "Little Theatre"'s on the first page (Leicester, Bath, Gateshead, Thornton, Torquay, Doncaster, Southport, Brighton, Sheringham, Chorley). The unadorned name should definitely be the dab page. Tevildo (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ordering

The page was rearranged to some order i don't understand, from a geographically ordered one. Also some entries like

• Little Theatre (Jacksonville, Florida), listed on the NRHP in Florida

were dropped. Why? Isn't geographic order by country, and in the U.S. by state then city, best? --doncram (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrangement is based upon MOS:DAB, order of entries in alphabetical ordering or each group.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, i've participated in long, boring discussions about how MOSDAB should read in its ordering section there, fighting against unreasonable changes. The key phrase remaining there is: "4.Finally, within the above groups, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. This order might be alphabetical, chronological, by most likely target, or by some other method." For a list of places, where readers are likely to know approximately where the place they are interested is located, it makes sense to use geographic order. For gosh sake, don't make the reader explore the new zealand entry when they're looking for a place in kansas. :) --doncram (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The key there is "within the above groups". The choice or ordering only applies to within each category in the other 3 bullets of the order of entries, not over the entire dab. page. The links are divided in such a manner that appears appropriate given the guidelines. The was alphabetical before (although not polished as it is now). There is already separation by country, so that's not an issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. section here is one group, by my reading of the policy and by my understanding of intent of the long discussions. It is reasonable to order the U.S. ones by state then city. I believe that best serves readers and am restoring it. --doncram (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that that is the intent. I had a look through the MOS:DAB archives and didn't find any discussion where such a consensus (order by states) was reached. None of the polls of December appears to deal with such an issue. Nevertheless I'm not going to get into an edit conflict over a dab. page. So, as long as no piped links or redirects are used, I'll be happy. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks! In the discussions at that time and leading up to it, i was hyper-focused on the issue of ordering as it would apply to dab pages like this one. An editor had changed the ordering section language in way that would outlaw the current ordering by geography here. There was indeed a lot else discussed by others, and maybe some other changes, but the outcome i focused on was the restoration of language allowing for other reasonable ordering schemes. Thanks again. --doncram (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, it was your earlier edit that added several items such as the Mull one, not organized by country. I appreciate that in your later edit you are keeping the by country organization. That is an improvement. What remains might only now be the issue of order within the U.S. section. Is that correct? I don't think it helps improve the wikipedia to put the U.S. section here, which is growing long enough already (and there will probably be more additions), in any order other than geographical, which will most likely serve readers the best. --doncram (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Labattblueboy. Station1 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)