Talk:List of drive-in theaters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inclusion criteria

As with all "List of..." articles, this one must have clearly stated objective inclusion criteria. Currently, the article states, "This list includes active and defunct drive-in theaters." This would imply that it intends to be a list of every drive-in theater that has ever existed. Clearly, this neither possible nor desirable.

Off hand, I can think of four possible sets of criteria:

1) All drive-in theaters ever.

2) All currently operating drive-ins.

3) All notable (blue-link) drive-ins.

4) All notable (blue-link) operating drive-ins.

At the moment, the article lists 25 U.S. theaters (21 of them blue link) and one in Canada (also blue-linked). One of the sources cited in the article states that there were 338 drive-ins currently open in the U.S. (as of 2014). That number is certainly not accurate now.

IMO, #3 or 4 seems the most logical. Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

After a month without comment, I am a consensus of one. Blue links it is. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: Sorry for the late response. Thanks for raising this issue. Notability is a chronic problem with this article's contents. If I understand your conclusion, I think I am in agreement. I favor option #3 (all blue links). If it's notable enough to have a reasonably sourced article, it can be included here. If the linked article has notability or sourcing problems, the article needs to be tagged as such and eventually AfD'd if there is no improvement. Unlinked and red-linked entries have to go. Sundayclose (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone has the technical expertise, it might reduce clean-up issues if there is an explanation with the criteria displayed prominently at the top of the page when you open an edit window, similar to the one for List of common misconceptions. Sundayclose (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed several edits at this article, such as this reversion of an addition, and then I see this discussion having gone on. I don't think Twinkle should be used to brush off additions to the list, and if someone objects to an addition it would be nice if they would move it to this Talk page rather than simply deleting it. About inclusion criteria, I think that redlinks (which call for an article's creation) and "blacklinks" (which mention a drive-in but don't suggest an article is needed) can/should be kept if they are supported adequately by references. Frankly, while once there many hundreds of drive-in theaters in the United States, there's room to list them all, and it provides readers a service to provide a comprehensive list. --doncram 18:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle is not being used to "brush off" anything. I am using Twinkle as a tool to make editing easier. At the moment, I am reverting additions to the article that are contrary to the current inclusion criteria.

Yes, we currently limit the article to notable theaters. No, loosening those criteria would not make this a comprehensive list. Instead, it would be an indiscriminate list. The inclusion criteria would be "any drive-in theater that ever existed and was mentioned in a newspaper article that anyone bothered to add". The drive-in used in the video for the Hooter's "And We Danced" and the one in Digital Underground's "Same Song" would be included. They might have been bulldozed long ago, but we would list them. I'm sure we can find sources for those used in filming "Grease!", various Frankie & Annette movies, etc. We'll also end up with those that anyone particularly wants to add (maybe they had an important date there or have fond memories from childhood) from local newspapers when they were eventually razed. Missing from the list would be any that existed or exist that no one bothers to add.

In the end, we would have a slowly growing indiscriminate list limited only by the number of drive-ins that ever existed.

We could try to limit it to "currently" open theaters, but there is no reasonable way to keep such a list updated and such a list is not encyclopedic. That would be a guide to drive-ins, which is not what we do here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SummerPhDv2.0 and would also note that this is very much a matter of notability. If a drive-in isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (even a very short one with a source or two), and if someone doesn't want to go to the trouble to create such an article (it takes 10 minutes to create an article if you have a source), then it's not notable enough to be in this list. Sundayclose (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I too have experience with lots of list articles, and I don't really see problems with indiscriminate additions. Years ago there was more interest in Wikipedia and lists grew seemingly out of control, but I don't see that anymore. Besides fairly well defined list-systems such as lists of National Register of Historic Places places, some vaguer examples are List of Presbyterian churches and List of Presbyterian churches in the United States and similar others, where there is some requirement of notability imposed.

Here, on one level I am really not sure why not include all drive-in movies. If a list gets too long, divide it by geographic area. All high schools are generally deemed notable; we assume that coverage about them exists. All museums, pretty much the same. About drive-in theatres, any surviving ones are all pretty much historic (at least in the United States), and there is literature and film about them (including some film about history of drive-ins that is shown at some drive-ins each summer, which is boring and I have seen, but is coverage).

I oppose limiting the list to current ones; that doesn't work in my experience because certainly there are historic closed theaters that are obviously notable, and like you suggest it would make the list seem like a directory.

Suppose that some higher standard of notability is to be required. For one thing, requiring any reference at all, much less a reliable source properly formatted which carries significant information about the drive-in, imposes a burden that is actually pretty high. We can simply dismiss directory listings that merely prove existence.

Surely you don't really want to exclude mention by a redlink of a historic drive-in theatre which is listed on the U.S. National Register or some other register, where we have in hand extensive documentation proving the topic meets wp:GNG. Or where we pretty much know such documentation exists. What's needed for such cases is some references that prove the historic listing (which ensures documentation exists), or that directly suffice as establishing GNG. There are about 20,000 red-link NRHP topics vs. about 60,000 ones having articles now.

It is unreasonable to insist the article must be created first; that is rude to would-be contributors; it is far better to challenge people to come up with sources. --doncram 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth the only NRHP-listed ones that I can find easily (have "drive-in" in their name, and NRHP-listed before 2012) are:

• 66 Drive-In
• Beverly Drive-In Theatre
• Butchie's Drive-In, a drive-in restaurant, not a theatre
• Matt's Place Drive-In, a drive-in restaurant, not a theatre
• Spud Drive-In Theater

and these all have articles already. [Also there is Moonlite Theatre.] They aren't all developed with the great, extensive NRHP documentation which exists somewhere about each of them. The last one has some newspaper article about "historic theater tragically being closed" or whatever. Which is coverage. Practically every drive-in that survived after some point long ago has coverage like that. Which suffices, IMO. We could limit the list-article by requiring contributors to come up with coverage like that.

Also, it is poor practice in my view to force contributors to create articles on the marginal ones, where they're likely to have a bad experience, and it causes work for AFD editors and others. It's far better to have a list-article with a fairly liberal list-item inclusion bar, and allow redirects to list-items about the places to be created, instead. This can/should be expanded to a list-table, allowing for a photo and a few sentences about each place. Heads off lots of one- and two-sentence articles. --doncram 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with indiscriminate additions is you end up with an indiscriminate list.

"List of..." articles without clear, objective selection criteria eventually become problems. They either end up with lots of unsourced and/or poorly sourced entries or arguments that cannot be resolved. Another list I worked on building criteria for had a long history of arguments over whether or not various superhero TV shows are superhero shows. Sure, Batman, Superman and such, but what of Knight Rider, Mermaidman and Barnacle Boy, the Lone Ranger, etc.? Do web shows count? How about film serials that later moved to TV? Clear, objective criteria solved the problem. Notable webshows? Yes. Non-notable TV shows? No.

What we have is a list of notable drive-ins. What we would have is a list of notable drive-ins, plus a few current ones added by the owners trying to promote them, all of the drive-ins that existed near New Jersey beach towns in the 1950s (added by a special interest group), all of the drive-ins ever listed in the Dearborn, Michigan phone book (added by a guy with autism, he'll dig up listings from the June 1982 Penny Shopper if you challenge him) and the drive in someone in Wausa, WI fondly remembers.

Looking at that list, it would sure seem that most drive-ins were near Dearborn or Jersey beach towns, an inaccurate conclusion, based on an indiscriminate collection of information and compiled into a list with subjective selection criteria. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What list are you referring to? This current list-article is itself an indiscriminate list, it is certainly random which 20 or so ones are covered, presumably partly a random function of which random editors cared enough about a local place to create an article about it. A bigger list would be more professional, less random. --23:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than any of the common selection criteria, if I understand you correctly, your criteria are: it is/was a drive-in; it has a source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Drive-in theatres are rare and notable and we can list them all, perhaps even in one page without splitting it. Compare this frankly-IMO-shoddy list to List of round barns, which lists 20 Canadian ones, about 147 U.S. ones if i just counted correctly, and 5 in Europe. That list includes all that can be identified, many being "blacklinks". I am surprised that this list and the linked articles are so poor, because I perceive drive-in theatres to be a more popular topic. The U.S. section of this list would be vastly improved by expanding it out to simply list all 338 of the current theatres listed in the Nerve.Com source. I wasn't actually suggesting that yet; I was suggesting so far that we require sources exist and that the sources describe the place well enough to include at least a date of construction. That list could be simply described as being comprehensive in current theatres plus including notable closed ones. It would be highly manageable as new drive-in theatres are not being opened (with the Disney one opened in 1991 being an exception). The current list is indefensible, IMHO. --doncram 01:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My first choice would be to only include drive-ins with articles. Second choice is notable drive-ins, including those without articles if they include citations of reliable sources that show notability (being on the NRHP would be sufficient, sources that only show existence would not be, etc.). Opposed to inclusion criteria which in any way depends on whether or not it's currently operating. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I think a caveat is that probably all 330 or so surviving drive-in theatres in the U.S. probably do have sources available about them. I would be pretty much willing to bet on that. So actually while I too oppose "currently operating" as a limiting criterion, I pretty much think that currently-operating ones should actually all be included. For the immediate time being we could operate with stricter requirement that the sources actually be provided to support each one. Sources should have the year of theater's opening. A directory listing without at least that is not sufficient. --doncram 23:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My first only choice is blue links only. Second choice is any drive-in that can be reliably sourced, strictly enforced, as well as year of opening. Sundayclose (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

less Talk, more development please

This Talk page, at 14,000 bytes size currently, is twice as long as the list-article itself, even after I have just added information on almost every entry. There's no way to enforce this, but could editors commenting on this Talk page please consider limiting their edits by the rule that you must develop more material and more number of edits in this list-article or in the linked individual drive-in articles, than you state on this page (besides in this section discussing this suggested rule).

Also, by the way, the majority of the existing articles are incredibly lousy. It is SO random which ones have articles; many do not have any assertion of importance and two (the one Canadian one and one U.S. one) don't have any year of being built info in their article or their existing sources. --doncram 00:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with your suggestion. First, you are assuming that more material is an improvement. (I have seen articles that were significantly improved by removing large portions of the article.)

Next, you are jumping ahead on the current discussion. We are currently discussing what the selection criteria for the article should be. The existing criteria call for limiting the article to blue link notable entries only. By adding red link entries, your most recent edit either ignores this or assumes that your proposal is the new criterion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The sizes of an article and its talk page do not have to have any type of ratio. There are many brief articles with lengthy talk pages (including archives). Requiring some type of contribution to the article in order to express an opinion flies in the face of every principle of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". And then there's the issue of how you would enforce it. It's certainly not a blockable offense, and removing others' talk page comments is absolutely forbidden. To my knowledge that has never been a requirement for any article, and I have never even seen it suggested. No personal offense (anyone has a right to suggest anything on a talk page), but my personal opinion is that such a requirement is absurd. Sundayclose (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I only ask you to please consider the suggestion. Besides adding at least two bluelinks to the U.S. section, I have added six U.S. redlinks, and three blacklinks. How about creating articles for some of these, using the references I have already added plus finding more of your own. Or adding more to this list-article about any of the red or black ones, to clarify their being okay for inclusion by criteria of everyone. --doncram 06:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And I ask that you consider all of the other suggestions. Namely, that more doesn't mean better. You've added a whole bunch to the Canada section based just on this directory site. One in Nairobi based on this. You literally added one just based on its own website. That's not notability. I understand you're saying you believe all (or all remaining) drive-in theaters are notable, but I don't think anybody has agreed with you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Right, okay, I hear you. To keep discussion organized, let's discuss other topics in separate sections. I will open separate sections on the Canadian source, on Cinema Treasures, and on I.P-added items which are sourced just to the drive-ins' websites, which I think will address Rhododendrites' new points. I don't mean to avoid anything that needs to be discussed in negative terms, although I will be more happy if there is balanced participation by editors here.

In this section titled "Less Talk, more development please", I want to ask for more development. I'm sorry if I might be making an overstatement (not sure), but I think in my edits and history-browsing yesterday I observed _zero constructive edits in the list-article_ going back to last November at least. What I see is various I.P. editors arriving and adding stuff, some with sources, and then all of that being deleted. This is destructive of good will. Some items like the Ocala Florida one have been added by same or different editors several times, which I tend to think means the items are obviously important and notable. Yes, the sources given are often links to the drive-ins' own websites, which are primary-type sources. IMO these should not be completely dismissed, though I would agree that adding additional independent sources would obviously be good too. Instead of deleting them (here is my call for development), could others please consider looking up items in the Cinema Treasures source and otherwise searching for sources on those topics, and adding rather than repeating the negative cycle.

I mentioned in this section that I had added multiple items to the list, without really wanting to discuss them in detail here, but rather the connection being that I was suggesting ways for other editors to participate in development constructively. Further, later I added more from the Canadian source and from restoring other I.P. additions. For some of those I went and looked them up in Cinema Treasures and added additional notes. I didn't get back to them all yet. You, gentle reader, could help by improving those. :) --doncram 15:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

ongoing development

@Doncram: There has been an existing consensus to add only blue links. Consensus can change, but so far it hasn't. It is inappropriate for you to make such unilateral decisions against current consensus. Please stop. Sundayclose (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my putting this into a separate discussion section. I think the "current consensus" is not clear. I have found sources and added material and discovered there were valid additions previously, which changes the game. I think it is productive to develop further, and for you and others to participate in that some please, for a while further, before returning to some mode of control only. Please note, I would consider it absurd to revert the article to its pathetic status without recent additions, and I hope you would not seriously want to do that. About settling on a new consensus eventually, perhaps that will not in fact be hard to do, after a bit. it could entail getting some outside views with an RFC perhaps, but I personally don't want an RFC yet, I would rather develop together with others here for a while more. Gotta run right now, will comment more later. --doncram 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The current consensus is abundantly clear. It was established in July of 2016. It was not a broad consensus, but it is the current consensus.

Yesterday, you suggested changing the criteria. There seems to be little support for your suggestion so far. Until such time as a new consensus emerges, the current consensus -- blue-link notable entries only -- stands. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There was already support by two editors, Rhododendrites and Sundayclose, besides me, at least as a "second choice", for redlink items where supporting references supported GNG. I would say that it is a fair read of consensus already that NRHP-listed ones are obviously notable and should be kept.

By my editing in the article, I did not mean to assert/imply that every item I had added was permanently okay in its current form. I personally would rather not have items supported just by a link to the theatre's webpage permanently in the article. I do have confidence that there are other sources which can be added about all of them. I would like for there to be an open construction period, and then eventually some sorting/review and removal of any that really are not adequate (which could be some of them).

I am sorry if I offended anyone by boldly going ahead and developing the list-article, and also by denigrating its recent/current status and the quality of interactions with contributing editors. --doncram 04:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

After a day and a half, you seem to have decided that your preference carried the day. To decide that, you have ignored everyone else's first choice.

As should be clear, my opinion is that we should limit the article to non-redirect blue-links.

Rhododendrites, whose second choice you pointed to, said, "My first choice would be to only include drive-ins with articles."

Sundayclose, whose second choice you pointed to, said, "My first choice is blue links only."

Blue links was the consensus when you got here. I do not see a new consensus at this time. If you would like to ask for an uninvolved admin to close this, we can do that. However, a day and a half is very little time for your proposal and I honestly don't see a first choice and two second choices over-riding three first choices.

While there might be a presumption of notability for NRHP-listed theaters, the current consensus calls for at least a stable stub for inclusion here.

There already is an "open construction period" on every non-protected article. Anyone not subject to a block/sanctions can edit any article not subject to protection/restrictions. That said, this "open construction" does not extend to editing against consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: Please tell us exactly which parts of the phrases "current consensus" and "first choice" you don't understand. Refusing to get the point when it has been explained several times is disruptive editing. We have made it crystal clear: The existing consensus still stands and has not been changed; and so far you are the only person supporting a change. Sundayclose (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

deleted items

Okay, I see SummerPHDv2.0 has deleted a bunch of items from the article, including the following U.S. ones, some being NRHP-listed. Is it someone's belief that these cannot be notable? How about discuss these here until there is some agreement about returning them to the article.

• 1 Comanche Drive-In (1967), in Buena Vista, Colorado (38.8232°N 106.1839°W / 38.8232; -106.1839 (Comanche Drive-In)), NRHP-listed
• 2 Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant (1991), inside Walt Disney World in Bay Lake, Florida. Designed in 1950s retro style.
• 3 Ocala Drive-In, in Ocala, Florida
• 4 Jesup Drive-In Theater (1948), in Jesup, Georgia Closed in 1960s, reopened 1970 with a second screen added.
• 5 Starlight Six Drive-In (1950), Atlanta, Georgia. "Really fun".
• 6 Swan Drive-In Theatre, Blue Ridge, Georgia
• 7 Tiger Drive-In, Tiger, Georgia
• 8 Sunset Auto-Vue (1955), Grangeville, Idaho. Closed in 1986, reopened in 1990s. Its marquee is miles away from the theater, which is bare of signage.
• 9 Sky View Drive In Theatre (1961), Litchfield, Illinois, the last operating drive-in on Route 66 in Illinois
• 10 Lake Shore Drive-In (1949), Monticello, Indiana. Added second screen in 2003.
• 11 Bengies Drive-In (1956), Essex, Maryland. Its 120 by 52 feet (37 m × 16 m) screen is the biggest surviving in the U.S.
• 12 Meadows Twin Drive-in (1953), Woodsville, New Hampshire
• 13 Johnny All-Weather Drive-In, in Copiague, New York. One of the largest drive-ins, it was over 29 acres (12 ha) in size and could park 2,500 vehicles.
  • Additional info: this source adds it was opened in 1957 and closed in 1984, and it was subsequently demolished, and that its indoor cinema had capacity for 1200. --doncram 04:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• 14 Midway Drive-In Theatre (1948), between Fulton and Oswego, New York Its original screen survived until a 2014 windstorm.
• 15 Admiral Twin Drive-In Theater (1951), Tulsa, Oklahoma, used as a set in The Outsiders
• 16 99W Drive-in Theatre (1953), Newberg, Oregon (45.304861°N 122.948071°W / 45.304861; -122.948071 (99W Drive-in Theatre)), NRHP-listed
• 17 Silver Drive-In (1962), Windber, Pennsylvania. Survived through public outcry over proposals to close and demolish it, making a comeback in 2005.

References

About numbers 1 and 16 above, the NRHP-listed Comanche Drive-In and the NRHP-listed 99W Drive-in Theatre, i think that they are obviously notable and should be returned to the article. --doncram 04:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the inclusion criteria question re-written. The current criteria call for blue-link notability, not the presumption of notability you presume NRHP-listed theaters to have.

Additionally, the "Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant" fails the current inclusion criteria twice. In addition to not being blue-link notable, it is not a drive-in theater. My non-notable (so far...) nephew played Lincoln in a school play (covered in the local newspaper), but we wouldn't add him to List of Presidents of the United States. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

FP article and Drive-Ins.Com source

This article in the Financial Post in 2015 states there were then 336 U.S. drive-ins and 51 Canadian ones, and [and 15 in Australia and a combined 23 in 13 other countries] and describes how fundamentals for the industry are good. I would add this reference to the article but I don't get why sourced text about the numbers of Canadian ones was removed, and I'll park it here for now. I would add some info about specific drive-ins discussed in the article, like whose owners are quoted, but some of those cinema items have been deleted from this list-article. If someone try their luck at using it in the article, that would be great. Note the Financial Post relies upon http://Drive-Ins.Com as a reliable source for their purposes, and looking at the source it looks good to me too. Drilling into its database gets you to pages like this one on Glendale 9 Drive-in, built 1979 in Glendale, Arizona. I see no reason why anyone would doubt the basic data it provides; I don't think that number of screens or dates built or whether they have digital projection or not are controversial facts that this website/database has incentive to misrepresent. I am surprised how many Canadian ones and other ones are built relatively recently. This list-article needs to convey the range of "built" dates and can do so by a table with built date being one of its sortable fields. --doncram 03:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

This article is a list of drive-in theaters. Discussion about drive-ins belongs at Drive-in theater.

Yes, there are articles and sites that likely provide reliable information about theaters. Phone books provide reliable information about theaters. The current consensus here is that this article lists blue-link notable theaters. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The assertion that a list-article does not contain discussion is overly broad, IMHO. It seems to me that general discussion of the numbers and range of drive-ins in each country is obviously helpful. At one level, it could be purely descriptive of the contents of the list: this list provides X number of Canadian ones, Y number of U.S. examples. Better, it would provide sourced info on actual numbers extant or historical. While you're right that the drive-in theatres article CAN discuss such things, I think that it does not, and it is natural to include overview kind of discussion. I think Featured Lists routinely have discussion. --doncram 04:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, the current list-article has too much on the simple definition of what is a drive-in. " A drive-in theater is a form of cinema structure consisting of a large outdoor movie screen, a projection booth, a concession stand and a large parking area for automobiles. Within this enclosed area, customers can view films from the privacy and comfort of their cars." should be dropped, IMHO, that is obvious or it is already covered in the drive-in theatre article. --doncram 04:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, other than the list itself, there should be very little (if any) content here that is not in the main article. Basically, it comes down to predictability and consistency.

Predictability: If I were looking for information on how many theaters there are or were, I might look here or at the main article. A brief summary of the info in the main article might make sense here.

If I'm looking for info on digital conversion, the history of theaters, concessions sold, types of films shown, popularity, a fake drive-in at Disney, etc., I'd look to the main article.

Consistency: It's been said that a person with a watch knows what time it is, while a person with two watches is never sure. Any duplicate topics, independently written will eventually conflict. Having duplicate topics decreases the likelihood that errors will be corrected, as anyone correcting the mistake has two places to correct the info, possibly with conflicting sources and varying norms in the multiple articles. A brief summary of material from the main article means material here should be little more than a briefer form of the material already in the main article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The "main" article should contain summary information about this list-article, e.g. about the distribution of drive-ins. This list-article, like other list-articles should contain descriptive information at low levels, summarized in lede and/or other higher levels. The "main" article should provide summary of that. This is ridiculously basic about how articles work in Wikipedia. --doncram 23:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Most list articles do not "contain descriptive information at low levels". Most of them may have text explaining the list at the beginning; then it's simply a list, nothing more, perhaps divided into sections. Everything else goes in Drive-in theater. Sundayclose (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria revisited

Okay, I see that my addition of the Joy-Lan Drive-In in Dade City, Florida was reverted, apparently because the criteria only includes blue linked drive-ins. Yet I see that the Brazos Drive In in Granbury, Texas was deleted on "G12" criteria. Either way the list seemed incomplete and random, and I was hoping to add more, specifically one that I found in Ohio while doing work on another WikiProject. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the list is "incomplete" in that it does not list every drive-in that has ever existed. Such a list would be extensive, very difficult to verify and, honestly, pretty useless.

A deletion for G12 is because the article was a copyright violation of material published elsewhere. Typically, someone finds a source and, not understanding copyright and/or plagiarism, simply copies all or a portion of the source.

If the drive-in in question (the one you want to add or the one with the deleted article) is notable, feel free to start an article for it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the reason for the G12 criteria, but I was hoping there could be a non-copyvio replacement. As for the notability of the Joy-Lan, other than being one of the few in the Tampa Bay Metro Area, I can't figure out what would make it notable. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The easy answer is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's also the hard answer. Everything else is commentary. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of drive-in theaters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120904121747/http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20101031/NEWS01/10310346/Beverly-Drive-burns-ground to http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20101031/NEWS01/10310346/Beverly-Drive-burns-ground

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)