Talk:Perth Concert Hall (Western Australia)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Australia: Western Australia / Music Low‑importance

	Australia portal Perth Concert Hall (Western Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Title

This venue is the primary meaning of Perth Concert Hall; there isn't even an article for the Scottish Perth Concert Hall at this stage. So, we really don't need the geographical descriptor at all.

But if we really must have it, we should treat it as a disambiguator and enclose it in brackets - Perth Concert Hall (Western Australia) - because "Perth Concert Hall, Western Australia" is not a locality where people live, like Broome, Western Australia.

Comments? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Scottish equivalent is at Perth Concert Hall (Scotland), but that could easily be deleted due to notability concerns. I ♦A 04:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Moved. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

was a verbatim lift from concert hall website, suspect more of the under-cited parts might be from similar copyrighted sources Satu Suro 12:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article appears to have been a word for word copy from website - bit bewildered that no one has picked it up Satu Suro 13:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the other way round. The concert hall website still has some of the citation marks, so I'd suggest they copied straight from Wikipedia. IgnorantArmies – 13:12, Sunday November 11, 2012 (UTC)

well look at the left hand bottom (C) mark - they are claiming copyright... Satu Suro 13:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright could easily relate to the website as a whole...it seems unlikely that whoever "wrote" the page on the website happened to leave [1] [2] [3] [4] in the middle of paragraphs, exactly corresponding to the citations in Wikipedia's article. IgnorantArmies – 13:28, Sunday November 11, 2012 (UTC)

have a look at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Perth_Concert_Hall%2C_Western_Australia&diff=198804224&oldid=196648015 they over wrote edelmans edits and did a word for word edit...~ Satu Suro 13:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...the material was added by Pch ogden (talk · contribs) – the user's only edits, which is pretty suspicious. Googling "PCH ogden" comes up with a link to AEG Ogden, the venue manager for the concert hall. I'm not sure what to make of that – it seems like the material was copied from somewhere, and then to the concert hall's website. IgnorantArmies – 13:35, Sunday November 11, 2012 (UTC)

The copyclaim on the PCH page is 2009-2010 the article edit occurred before that in March 2008, significantly by by a User using the name PCH Ogden with AEG Ogden as copyright holders on the PCH page. I would speculate that Ogden wrote this article first then used it as the basis for the PCH article, based on the information the WP article was first, especially if you take into account the citations numbers appear in the PCH text ocrresponding with citations in the WP article, while no citation references are on the PCH page to warrant them being there. Gnan garra 13:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pretty much my thoughts. I've posted a message on WT:WA just to get some further opinions, as I doubt this page is watched by many. IgnorantArmies – 13:45, Sunday November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Huh about 3 or 4 at the most these days.. But if you compare the website and the wikipedia article - technically from an outsiders view who has no understanding of edit history - could it be said that we are carrying a copyvio ? ... more or less the whole article can be compared word for word to the ogden website and as there is no attribution in the ogden website to their source ... do we revert to edelmans edits of 2008...? or what? Satu Suro 13:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer than 30

The Waybackmachine shows that as of October 2008 the PCH website didn't have a chronology or an architectural features page/section. That content went into the WP article in March 2008 or before.

The ref numbers on the website article is more evidence it was copied from here. I tend to agree with Gnagarra's speculation above. If Ogden et al posted it on WP first, he's released it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Moondyne (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edelmans edits had refs which ogden removed - and hardly a cite in sight on the ogden edit area - it all still looks like WP:OR... Satu Suro 14:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slighty coincidental that Ogden also manages the Perth Arena which opens yesterday. Agree with you re the cites. Anything improperly sourced can and should be removed. I thought Tom Wardle had a fair bit to do with the establishment of the PCH. Moondyne (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of responses to my earlier comments I have reverted my reversions for the moment - I am still not satisfied that where a website that has word for word coincidence as a wikipedia article is a good idea... specially where the website claims (c) and wikipedia additions have little or no citations or sources - I think this talk page should be archived ASAP, and the article as it is provided with citations to justify the ogden additions, or reverted to edelmans edits of 2008 - until someone has the time to re-write... Satu Suro 14:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the ref to point to the non-print-friendly PCH page - that being the one with the copyright notice on it. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]