Talk:Total House

Merge proposition

Draft:170 Russell, submitted by Coreysmithteam, is about the same topic as this article, but with different information. I encountered it while reviewing AfC submissions. It has mostly reliable sources, and all the informal, non-encyclopaedic tone has been removed. This article could be moved to 170 Russell, and be merged into the article. Any editors on this article, feel free to reply your thoughts! Clearfrienda ^💬 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Clearfrienda,

I hope you are well! I’d like to make a couple points that I believe should be edited.

170 Russell and Total House are separate entities at the same location.

As the article has been expanded/merged, I think the article name should be changed to 170 Russell to reflect it.

I’m not against keeping the Total House info, we can keep it but incorporate it into 170 Russell. Runningmarvelman (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the conversation, but in general, this seems like a good idea. Clearfrienda ^💬 19:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge reverted as per talk page discussion. Clearfrienda ^💬 12:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Please avoid disruptively changing the scope of articles from entire buildings to their basements, simply because someone has paid you to promote the basement. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Total House → 170 Russell – Article is primarily about 170 Russell venue incorporating information about Total House located at the same location. Both are separate entities and relevant to the article. Won't let me change the name as it says name exists due to redirect. Help if possible if it's supported Runningmarvelman (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per nomination. 170 Russell is the common name here. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I have struck my original vote; per other people below, Total House and 170 Russell are two separate things—I've since read the article a little more thoroughly and now understand why. I do think this article needs to be split, and references to the live music venue should be confined to a separate article (aside from a {{Main}} template etc). Sean Stephens (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  Also, I definitely think it's notable enough for a separate article, per this, this, this, this, and this (Concert Archives might also be useful, but it doesn't assist with proving notability). And that's all without looking at offline sources. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  They're literally all directory listings apart from an article about its evacuation due to a fire. I have no opposition to it being spun back out if the sources exist, but they haven't turned up yet. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. 170 Russell is not the common name, it's the venue currently operating within a small part of Total House. The entire article apart from one paragraph is about the history of the building. The building is still known as Total House (see, for example, [1][2], coverage of which usually doesn't even mention the venue. Changing the title without completely rewriting the article to be about the thing actually called 170 Russell would make this article even more hopelessly confused, and it's far from clear that the thing called 170 Russell is actually notable enough for an article. The thing that's clearly notable enough for an article is the heritage-listed very prominent building, which is Total House. Reading above, this entire situation seems to have been created because a very confused AfC reviewer with no subject knowledge made a mess of the existing article on the heritage building. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Definitely the common name, as said by Sean Stephens. People will most likely come to this article looking for 170 Russell, not Total House. If the move goes as planned, we will still (hopefully) keep all information from the previous article, just in a separate 'history' section. Clearfrienda ^💬 19:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is absurd. Total House is a landmark heritage-listed building with abundant sources in this article and elsewhere, as the Google Clearfrienda didn't bother to do at any stage would have shown. 170 Russell is a club in a small section of the building that does not pass WP:GNG. This is a case where we've got an AfC reviewer (Clearfrienda) with no subject knowledge who has made a mess of this article and then (after having the problem explained to him) starts insisting that the non-notable club is totally the common name in the hope that nobody will notice the mess that he made. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose 170 Russell is venue that happens to be inside a small part of the building Total House. I live in Melbourne and have never even heard of this venue, but I certainly have heard of and seen Total House, a heritage listed building. Of course that is OR for Wikipedia purposes, but the examples of current usage in prominent newspapers in this country provided by TDW[3][4] clearly show that it's just not me that thinks this. I do not subscribe to the sort of xenophobia that sometimes occurs in the online world, but this is a clear case of how someone who does not live in, nor apparently have any first hand knowledge of, a city can get it horrible wrong. This does not appear to be deliberate but should stand as a warning to those writing about subjects they do not have first hand knowledge of to be extraordinarily careful when writing on such subjects. -

  In fact I suggest the merged information be removed from the article or at least edited to section of this article. The inclusion of this info in its present form gives the venue undue weight.Nick Thorne ^talk 00:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The problem with this is that "170 Russell" doesn't appear to be notable on its own, and the pre-1980 history is the history of the Total Theatre (not "170 Russell", which is unrelated in any sense apart from occupying the same physical space as more notable earlier institutions) and so would belong in this article anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    • All the more reason why this info should be confined to a section of this article, I've struck my suggestion to de-merge. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, 170 Russell probably isn't notable, and if notability can be found, it can be added to a sub-section of the article, but for now, it has been reverted to its original state. Someone can probably close the move request. Clearfrienda ^💬 12:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per The Drover's Wife and the article’s lead, which very clearly states the scope of the article is greater than the current tenant of the basement. Cavalryman (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC).
• Oppose Strongly Even the most basic of google searches will show that the subject is clearly notable as Total House, and that 170 Russell is just another commercial venue which would probably not pass GNG in its own right. Yes, have a redirect from 170 Russell to Total House, and it might earn one short paragraph in due weight along side single paragraphs for most of the other tenants of the building over the years. Aoziwe (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment A new article was created for 170 Russell. This RM will need to be updated accordingly. 162 etc. (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close, 170 Russell is now a stand alone article. Nouraudes (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re chronology

Looks like the basement chronology was a little more complicated than the article currently states -- see [5] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It is intentionally vague in places where I've had difficulty sourcing precise details because of sketchy sources. The list you cited features many of the same venue names as the uncited list that was originally in this article but gives completely different years for them, with little further details that might lead one to be confident that this was correct. The claim that it was the "Total Cinema" from 1974 to 1979 is incorrect; it is correct that it was affiliated with Dendy in 1978 (which is new to me), but missed that it only became the Total Cinema when that affiliation happened (no doubt due to the original architect/owner's bankruptcy a year or so prior). The site seems to be incorrect about the post-1980 venue names. It does give the first closure date for the cinema that I've found and roughly checks out with the time it disappeared from advertising records. The only thing that I'd feel confident adding to the article on the basis of that list was the cinema closure date.

Things I've been unable to verify clearly enough for my liking: the years the Lido operated for, the precise details of what was there and when between the closure of the Lido and the opening of the theatre, any rebuild around the time of opening the theatre (beyond just renovating the existing space), the affiliation with Dendy and the shift from primarily a theatre to primarily a cinema, the transition from cinema to nightclub and if anything filled the space in that period, and basically anything about Billboard/101 Russell beyond its two names and that it exists and has had a few famous people play there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)