Talk:List of IMAX venues/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

IMAX in Tokyo

Mercian IMAX® Theatre in Shinagawa closed on the 31st of March, 2007.
- Their other theatre, a Shinkansen ride away in Karuizawa, appears to still be open.
Chiba Museum of Science and Industry IMAX® Dome Theatre closed on the 31st of March, 2004.
Yokohama Science Center IMAX® Dome closed on the 4th of April, 2003.
IMAX® Dome @ nifty closed on the 4th of October, 2002.
Tokyo IMAX® Theatre closed on the 1st of February, 2002.
Adachi Children Museum IMAX® Dome closed in November, 2000.

Is [Tama Rokuto Science Center Dome Theater] the last large screen cinema in the Tokyo area? It uses the GOTO system, rather than the IMAX system, and its listing on [Big Movie Zone] describes it showing 3D Documentary films. Are there no IMAX cinemas in and around Tokyo?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.47.214.193 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Maps

80.58.1.107 added a link to Google Maps for the Madrid IMAX... I reverted - cannot see the need for every entry to have a map link (plus it'll quickly get cumbersome), or what's special about Madrid that only it needs one. -Wangi 18:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to put the coordinates of every IMAX theatre in the world. As I'm from Madrid and know where it is I started with that one. I'm interested in knowing the location of every IMAX theatre but maybe as you said it's cumbersome. What about using a small text for the link? -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.1.107 (talk • contribs) .

Help me out here - why would you want to see that, what's the interest or usefulness? If each individual cinema had it's own page (and I'm sure a few of the centres they are part of do) then I'd say that is suitable (maybe!) information for there, but here?! -Wangi 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right. Adding this info to wikipedia is not useful, Nobody needs to have that info in wikipedia. There's no need to see quickly the coordinates, map and satellite photo of every venue. I just thought this info was OK for wikipedia, but maybe wikipedia it's not meant for that. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.1.107 (talk • contribs) .

Cleaning up, wikifying

Here's a suggestion how the article could be formatted to make it more readable:

Write external URL without description (like this [1]) to remove clutter.
Since all the people interested in going to this venue need to contact it and find it can use the URL, I suggest we remove coordinates and phone numbers. Yes it's been a lot of work, but it's also a lot of clutter.
The entries consist of Name, Place, URL and sometimes a special description. I suggest we remove everything else.
Write entries in one of the following formats, depending whether there is a description:

Toronto: Cinesphere IMAX Theatre [2]
Toronto: Cinesphere IMAX Theatre - The first permanent IMAX theatre in the world. [3]

- Make the Name a wikipedia link if an appropriate page exists. Linking is only appropriate if there is a special wikipedia page for this venue or place, but not if there is wikipedia page for the cinema chain.
- Make the Name exactly one link from start to finish. Linking "Coca-Cola" inside "Coca-Cola IMAX Theatre" doesn't cut it.
Sort the entries by city, which makes it the most accessible.

So, what does everybody think? Comments are welcome! Peter S. 22:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've made edits to the Australian cinemas along these lines, just so we can compare. A lot cleaner than the rest! Also, it makes sense to have the development the cinema is part of after the cinema name and before the locality. Wangi 13:45:31, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think starting with the city name would be better or worse? Peter S. 21:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think starting with the city names is much better. Please see my alterations to the Canada section. I took out a lot of links too. Maybe even more could be removed. It is a start... What do you think? --RobbyPrather 06:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, what if we used something like 'prettytable' to make it more readable? For instance:

Prettytable example
City	Name	Venue	Telephone	Ext. Link
Brampton, ON	Famous Players IMAX Theatre	Silvercity	+1 905 789 6797	[4]
Calgary, AB	Famous Players IMAX Theatre	Chinook Centre	+1 403 212 8098	[5]
Edmonton, AB	IMAX Theatre	Odyssium	+1 780 452 9100	[6]
Edmonton, AB	Famous Players IMAX Theatre	Silver City	+1 780 444 2400	[7]
Halifax, NS	Empire IMAX Theatre	Empire 12 Cinemas	+1 902 876 4848	[8]

What do you think? See a full example of Canada section using prettytable at List of IMAX venues/prettytableex --RobbyPrather 06:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not a table is used, I'd like to see screen dimensions added to each theater's entry. Information I haven't been able to find anywhere as yet. IMAX only gives ranges for screen size which allows a 'classic IMAX theater' to be smaller than a 'multiplex IMAX'. AFarenci (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete?

This article has been up for deletion before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues and I'm thinking about putting it again, but thought it useful to have a discussion here before doing so.

I think the article is unmaintainable and no-one has shown the interest in taking it on. It is a mass of red wikilinks too. Too much information is given (see Talk:List of IMAX venues/Archive 1#Cleaning up, wikifying above). I think a much better approach would be if notable IMAX cinemas had their own page and were part of an IMAX category.

What does everyone else think? Thanks/Wangi 10:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should clean it up like I suggested in the previous paragraph. It would make for a way more readable list, and remove all that ballast it currently has, while still preserving the info and enhancing the value of the list. What do you think about that suggestion? Peter S. 13:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Peter S.. I especially like his ideas for cleaning it up. I have adjusted the Canada section (but left the phone numbers in). What do you think? --RobbyPrather 05:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks much nicer, but I still don't think we need the phone numbers, this isn't a phone directory, after all. How about if we drop the phone numbers if we have a URL (because in this case, you can contact the venue pretty easily through the link)?. I also like the "prettytable" above, but we might like to add some explanations to some entries ("biggest screen in the world" etc), which will be difficult with such a fixed layout. Keep up the great work! Cheers :-) Peter S. 12:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is not a phone directory. Basically anyone can type in "IMAX Vancouver, BC" into google and find the phone number pretty fast. Does anyone else out there have any opionions? I agree that the "prettytable" could be nice, but with notes or explanations can be cumbersome. Too bad. I'll work on this later tonight when I get home from work. :-) --RobbyPrather 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the list, but if you're going to do the grunt work and convert the entries as they stand then go with what you like. But, yeah, dump the phone numbers, regardless if we have a web page. Also the locations are over-wikified as they are (as Peter S says somewhere above)... wangi 17:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

They are very over-wikified. I'll see what I can do about that too. There are actually guidelines on how many links are generally acceptable... I think its something like no more that 10% of the words and no more links than lines. I'll leave it as a list for right now. I may experiment with tables, but I won't do it on the main page. Oh, and goodbye phone numbers! --RobbyPrather 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of this article, I believe that it would be beneficial to have a category titled IMAX venues. I'm completely with Wangi on this point. --Gurubrahma 18:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Robby, it's fantastic that somebody finally takes this reformatting job and goes for it. Thank you very much! Peter S. 00:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up Progress

So, I've reformatted Australia through United Kingdom. What do you guys think? I'm hesitant to move on to the United States before gaining feedback from someone. Any thoughts? --RobbyPrather 15:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot better, good work. wangi 16:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job! Peter S. 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I believe I am close to being finished with the reformat. I added a "See also" section to the bottom of the article. See if you like it or don't or think that some of the things on the list should be removed or added. I like the Table of Contents for United States. I added links to "See also" on both TOCs. What do ya think? --RobbyPrather 03:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I re-ordered the states under United States. They were out of alphabetical order. Would anyone mind double-checking this article to make sure the countries and states are at least in alphabetical order? Also, I did create the Category:IMAX venues and placed some articles in it. Check it out. Tell me what you think, etc. Thanks! :-) --RobbyPrather 16:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Great work. Do you mind if I go through the "See also" section and remove many items, as most of them don't seem to be directly connected with IMAX or IMAX venues? Peter S. 22:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter S. I don't mind at all if you add or remove things from the "See also" section. I basically just put a lot of the links that were not IMAX venues but were linked in theater names (like Cinemark, Regal, etc.). I'm not really attached to any of them. --RobbyPrather (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I removed elements that had nothing to do with IMAX ("Pepsi"), theatre chains (not connected enough), 3) everything that has already a link in the main section. This left exactly 1 link (list of museums). Peter S. 11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think the page looks very good now, so I've removed the cleanup and wikify disclaimers. Is this okay by everybody? Peter S. 11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring over the appearance of China

If anyone finds the revert warring over the appearance of China (and Hong Kong) in this list inappropriate, please report it to WP:AN/I. He (and I) are under probation for such edits. I will refrain from reverting him on this list after this message. SchmuckyTheCat 15:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In any case both SchmuckyTheCat and I should refrain from changing how they're presented. It should be decided by the rest of the community based on how they were presented like [9] before our edits ([10] [11]). — Insta ntnood 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. There is no status quo on a wiki, other editors have already expressed a preference for sub-nationals to be sub-headings of their country, AND, it would be POV to express Hong Kong as being an equal international division with the rest of China. SchmuckyTheCat 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Only two editors, other than you, Huaiwei and I, have expressed above their preferences. RobbyPrather prefers to have a separate section, while Wangi prefers a subsection. Given Hong Kong's status, it would also be a POV to present it as an ordinary subnational entity, since it's not. — Insta ntnood 17:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no ordinary among the subnational entities around the world. If you feel disenfranchised, feel free to title the subsection Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. SchmuckyTheCat 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please name an ordinary subnational entity which status is comparable to that of Hong Kong and Macao (if there's any). — Insta ntnood 19:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You know why? Most folk couldn't care less.
Leave the page as it is now (HK within PRC) and if anyone other than you three comes along and edits things then it's time to discuss it. However as things stand you guys are just walking over a path you've already travelled many times on other articles. I don't think you guys even read each others comments anymore, it's one big circle :)
Thanks/wangi 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wangi I'm interested to know why you think they should be presented in this way. — Insta ntnood 19:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"one country, two systems" wangi 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The word country has several meanings. What does it mean in this policy? What does it mean in usual usage? Are they the same? — Insta ntnood 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going make myself dizzy in these circles! (and being Scottish I'm all too aware of the different meanings of country) Thanks/wangi 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 20:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wangi is pretty smart for managing to free himself from the clunches of instantnood. Anyway, thank you very much for that link, cat. I was kindof desperately wanting to know if there was even an avenue to air grievances when the arbcom's recommendations are clearly applicable. Instantnood, if you seem to display superior understanding of the arbcom's decisions, than can we assume you have been adhering to it all these while?--Huaiwei 12:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

We shall let other editors to decide based on how it was presented like in the list before our edits. It's pretty clear that there are two opposing views between two editors who have expressed their opinion. — Insta ntnood 16:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh nice suggestion, instantnood. Have you adhered to it yourself?--Huaiwei 03:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And Wangi has disregarded RobbyPrather's opinion and edited according to her/his preference. — Insta ntnood 09:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please. I made an edit weeks ago that put HK within China. That edit was still in place until you changed it a few days back. I do not see anyone else jumping up and down about it. RobbyPather is free to discuss it if he wants, but it's worth pointing out his last comment on the matter was about one month ago... I think you guys have bored him to tears with your circular discussion! So, as I said above - lets leave it as it currently is and if anyone else comes along and thinks it's in the wrong place then that is the proper time to reconsider the matter. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood, can you leave things be? I do not want this article to be subject to the reverts it was getting back in December over the positioning of Hong Kong. You three guys all have vested interests and seem to delight in playing the same game on many articles (i.e. also on the arline by code article too just now). Such nonsense does nothing to help in our aim here of writing an encyclopedia. Please can you consider if this is good use of peoples time, or is their energy better spent elsewhere? Thanks/wangi 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Wangi.. But the matter has never been settled, and you have not yet told us the reason why non-sovereign territories like Hong Kong have to be presented as subsections under the corresponding sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

New IMAX opened

A new IMAX opened in Silver Spring Maryland. Someone please add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.160.115 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Real vs. Fake

I was thinking upon reading the 'urge to delete' that it might as well be deleted if there is no differentiation between real vs. fake IMAX theatres. I mean, what's the point in listing it if you don't know which it is? Isn't that pertinent -- no, paramount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.192.136 (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Odeon Kingston

The Odeon Kingston appears to me listed twice - once under London and another under Kingston Upon Thames. Are they different cinemas; I don't know if they are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.188.155 (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dual Projection

In this context, does "Dual Projection" refer to a venue that is equipped to project both 15/70 mm film and digital? Or does it have some other meaning? (Eg. some sort of system that attempts to simulate 70mm film projection using dual 35mm projectors, or something similar...)24.222.2.222 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of IMAX venues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on List of IMAX venues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of IMAX venues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131014162620/http://www.imax.com/theatres/t/vodafone-imax-americana-plaza/ to http://www.imax.com/theatres/t/vodafone-imax-americana-plaza/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of IMAX venues. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imax.com/theatres/t/vodafone-imax-americana-plaza/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sydney, Australia, IMAX theatre to be demolished to make way for 20-storey hotel

Fuller story here, this can serve as a citation: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/sydney-imax-cinema-at-darling-harbour-to-be-demolished-20160824-gqzs83.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.46.24 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Alaska IMAX

Anchorage alaska has an imax theatre called "Alaska Experience Imax Theater", just fyi i cannot confirm online but it exists, so add it if you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.109.244 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Soarin' Really IMAX

They don't show IMAX films, and I don't beleive they're using an IMAX projector. They do project a 70MM film onto a dome, but that's about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themeparkphoto (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Geography cleanup

Someone want to take the task to organize China's Imax venues the way the US and UK do? Hong Kong is out there as it's own entity because that's the way it shows up on some website. SchmuckyTheCat 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason why it's presented as such in many other sources? — Insta ntnood 05:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Insta ntnood. I reverted back your edit because it basically wiped out hours of work. What did you mean by 'keep the link'? If there are links that I took out, we can work on that. Please don't just revert the page. Also, if you disagree with the current status of the article, let's talk about it here. Thanks. --RobbyPrather 05:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Insta ntnood. I think I figured out what you meant to do. So, see if Hong Kong looks good to ya now. :-) --RobbyPrather 06:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much Robby. I made a technical mistake when partially undoing SchmuckyTheCat's edit. :-) — Insta ntnood 06:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. No big deal on the mistake... I've made my share too. I agree with your take on the Hong Kong entry. Do you live in Hong Kong? --RobbyPrather 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong to list Hong Kong with its own section, but users like SchmuckyTheCat prefer presenting it as a subsection. The disagreements have taken place across many other similar lists, and I suppose the temporary solution is to keep them as they were. What's your opinion? — Insta ntnood 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with Hong Kong having its own section. Especially considering that it is referenced within the China section. By definition (if I understand correctly) Hong Kong and China are 2 countries ruled by one system (although that system is the People's Republic of China). Let's leave Hong Kong and China separate. Sound good? --RobbyPrather 15:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that's exactly backwards. One country, two systems not "2 countries ruled by one system". And this kind of editing, separating Hong Kong from China, is exactly what his arbcom case is about [12].

SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not separating Hong Kong from China. Hong Kong was presented with its own section prior to my edits, and I was keeping the then status quo. It is not my ArbCom case. It's about aggressive and inappropriate enforcement of one's POV by modifying existing articles, lists and categories en masse, which was what SchmuckyTheCat had been doing. [13] [14] — Insta ntnood 20:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Trying to shift responsiblity is what instantnood is most expert at. So what if others are "at fault" too? Does that means he is innocent? Just about everyone agrees, that it is instantnood's "aggressive and inappropriate enforcement of one's POV by modifying existing articles, lists and categories en masse" which sparked tonnes of revert wars and other undesirable behavior in wikipedia. Saying he is "keeping to the status quo" is just a typical excuse. We have yet to see him ever trying to revert an article to a version he didnt like based on the "status quo" theory. Does this mean he is "not separating HK from China"? Hardly, considering he has declared that Hong Kong is a country to the amazement of those who know better.--Huaiwei 16:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

For everyone's information, as a matter of fact I did revert articles to version that contradict with my personal preference. On the other hand, Huaiwei's very own understanding of the English word country has been contested and disapproved by members of the Wikipedian community [15]. — Insta ntnood 21:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

And for everyone's information too, he did so only when pressured to do so, and when admins were told to observe his behavior. The so-called "wikipedian community" who supposedly "disapproves" in that instance was over the monumental task of changing every reference to the word country. My assertion that the word "country" is abused to advance political agendas remain uncontested irregardless, and continues to the core rationale behind undoing or removing the agenda instantnood continously tries to introduce into wikipedia.--Huaiwei 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole trouble was a result of Huaiwei's very own understanding of the English word "country". He has been equating this terminology with "sovereign state", and accusing people who're calling non-sovereign territories countries to be putting forward an agenda, spreading propaganda, for independence. — Insta ntnood 17:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats a very nice way of putting your POV across. I dont think this is the first time I have to say, that your continued failure in accepting the fact that the term "country" is popularly used to refer to sovereign states, and thereby taking it as an excuse to continue labelling sub-national entities like "Hong Kong" as countries immediately raises eyebrows amongst those who know better. It is not an "acusation" per say. Your behavior speaks for itself, and your political stance confirmed by your own words. Did I ever need to "accuse" you for what you admit?--Huaiwei 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Any reason why you don't agree non-sovereign territories should have their own sections as sovereign states do? Why are you applying this standard only to Hong Kong and Macau, but not other territories that are having their own sections on other similar lists sorted by country? — Insta ntnood 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Applying this only to HK and Macau? Actually I tried removing all other instances, but apparantly you tried to gather popular support from wikipedians interested in other territories, and tried to use them as an excuse for your politiking. Conversely, I asked you before over your obvious hypocrisy and double-standards: if you want to accept the academic meaning of the word "country" whole-heartedly, then Guangdong is also a country. So is Scotland. So is London. So is "the territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc." So is "a tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc" So is "an indefinite usually extended expanse of land". So is "the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship or a political state or nation or its territory." So is "the people of a state or district."

Why arent you applying these definition to every entity which so qualifies? Why do you oppose the inclusion of the UK's constituent countries as "countries", even when they were specifically mentioned in supposedly "authoritative references"? Why do you reject the inclusion of Tibet? Double standards? Now you explain to me your actions as well.

I think my reasons for disagreeing that independent and non-independent entities should not be treated in such a lax manner has already been repeated again and again and to which you simply ignore or feign ignorance towards. Do I still need to repeat myself?--Huaiwei 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What should be included, and what should be excluded, is already a consensus among Wikipedians. After failing getting any approval on other territories, Huaiwei has kept on targetting on Hong Kong and Macau, and created inconsistence. — Insta ntnood 06:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood, you've just reverted SchmuckyTheCat's edit which moved Hong Kong into the Chinese section now that the Chinese section is subdivided by area. I'd consider that edit the best solution to the discussion above and the one that makes the most sense. Everyother section is a country, Hong Kong should be listed under China. To be honest I'm not interested in the edit history/arbitration going on - this makes the most sense for this article. Thanks/wangi 16:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's all about how non-sovereign territories (e.g. overseas territories, colonies, external territories, special territories.. whatever way they are called) should be dealt with on Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 16:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. However the edit you reverted was, in my opinion, the best solution for this article. Rather than stick on the issue, do nothing constructive about it and constantly revert edits can we instead build consensus here on what format we prefer to use for this article?

Quoting the original source as the "de facto" and sticking to that isn't a real solution - the original source had quite a few geographic mistakes (one I remember is Belfast listed under Ireland!), so I wouldn't trust it! Thanks/wangi

Listing non-sovereign territories with their own sections is not a mistake like listing Belfast under the section for the Republic of Ireland as you've suggested. Subsections are for ordinary subnational entities, such as provinces and states. — Insta ntnood 17:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You've missed my point - simply because it was that way in the original document is not a reliable reason to have it that way for ever more in this article. We should come to a consensus here, among ourself, what we want to do in this article. We shouldn't revert back and forward for ever. wangi 17:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

When no agreement has ever reached the only thing we could do is to keep things according to what they were. I suppose nobody would contest moving Belfast from the section for the Republic of Ireland to the subsection for Northern Ireland under the UK section, which is not the case for Hong Kong. — Insta ntnood 17:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an agreement policy. NPOV, verifiability, consensus. Listing Hong Kong as independent is POV. You won't find any source that says Hong Kong is an independent country. You don't have consensus. SchmuckyTheCat 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No one is saying Hong Kong is an independent sovereign state. Limiting sections solely to sovereign states is not NPOV either. There's never ever any consensus to limit sections to sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 07:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There is never any concensus to treat non-independent entities and independent states as equals in all instances either. Hong Kong looks perfectly fine where it is now, as it should be for all cases.--Huaiwei 12:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There's never any consensus to list non-sovereign territories under their corresponding sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There's never any consensus not to list non-sovereign territories under their corresponding sovereign states either.--Huaiwei 16:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there's no consensus, neither way can be considered incorrect. Nobody shall change the another way to her/his preference. — Insta ntnood 16:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So does that include adding new information based on perfered presentation styles btw? Are you in the position to make that declaration, when you arent adhering to it yourself?--Huaiwei 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to say your way is the only correct way and shall prevail? — Insta ntnood 17:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that what I am trying to say? I dont know. Could you explain to us why that is so?--Huaiwei 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If that's not what you tried to say, please kindly refrain from changing to the another way that you prefer. — Insta ntnood 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Now you tell me how you interpret my words before making yet another assumption over what I didnt even say. I have noticed you love to jump to conclusions, so I am now giving you a chance to explain how you do it. That you even take my inquiry as a conclusion in itself is amusing! :D--Huaiwei 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please~ I asked "[a]re you trying to say..?".. would a conclusion come in the form of an enquiry? You neither admitted nor denied it, and I'd wonder what can be backing your insistance to enforce your point of view. — Insta ntnood 06:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I can see you three have went through this discussion a fair few times in the past... Might I suggest that this isn't the place for it and lets just leave the article as it currently stands WRT Hong Kong. Thanks/wangi 16:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Wangi. — Insta ntnood 21:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Wangi. But I suppose this kind of nonsense will only stop if everyone quit trying to spread his propaganda all over wikipedia not only in content edits but also in talkpages. Fanning one viewpoint simply invites a response. This page is no different.--Huaiwei 16:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's never a good sign to show your willingness to reach any consensus by labelling ~~something~~ anything as nonsense and propaganda. — Insta ntnood 17:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (modified 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

What did I label as nonsense? What is considered propaganda? Mind enlightening us on this, since I dont think I made that specific at all in the first place? ;)--Huaiwei 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

India

Just removed Sikar from the list. It's a small city in Rajasthan, and has no IMAX screen according to the official site (http://www.imax.com/theatres/).

The Kolkata Science City dome is also not an official IMAX screen.

Finally, the Mumbai IMAX BIG Cinema apparently no longer has world's largest cinema screen, as per http://gizmodo.com/5273201/the-seven-imax-wonders-of-the-world It is my understanding that the current record holder is the IMAX theatre in Sydney, Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.6.12 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of IMAX venues. 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://web.archive.org/web/20131014084715/http://www.dgstm.gov.cn/ to http://www.dgstm.gov.cn
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722234119/http://www.sstm.org.cn/ to http://www.sstm.org.cn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of IMAX venues. 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://web.archive.org/web/20140429230834/http://www.kinoarena.com/website/display/pageref/444681 to http://www.kinoarena.com/website/display/pageref/444681
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sci-ctr.edu.sg/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928072823/http://www.maritimeaquarium.org/imax.html to http://www.maritimeaquarium.org/imax.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225211016/http://www.challengertlh.com/ to http://www.challengertlh.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050825134437/http://www.imax.com/palisades/ to http://www.imax.com/palisades
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724211456/http://www.carycitizen.com/2010/07/20/imax-theater-coming-to-crossroads/ to http://www.carycitizen.com/2010/07/20/imax-theater-coming-to-crossroads/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308040220/http://www.rctheatres.com/loc_reading.asp to http://www.rctheatres.com/loc_reading.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705203104/http://www.vasc.org/imax/imaxinfo.html to http://www.vasc.org/imax/imaxinfo.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on List of IMAX venues. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of IMAX venues. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Pruning of the list

I'm of the opinion that this list really should have been selected for deletion - as mentioned in the Afd discussion, with the proliferation of digital screens, IMAX cinemas are no longer anything special.

However, with the excessive pruning that has taken place the list has become completely pointless. There is no notice of criteria for inclusion in the lede so I can envisage multiple re-additions. And the removal of cinemas appears to be arbitrary - for example, the United Kingdom has lost the two IMAX with Laser cinemas (which by their rarity I'd argue were notable) but retained the Odeon Metrocentre (presumably because the shopping centre has it's own wiki page).

What I'd suggest is to list only those theatres with either 15/70 projection, dual projection or IMAX with Laser. That would bring the list down to a few dozen theatres and give a clear criterion for inclusion in the list.

Barry Wom (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

By 2011, this list had the ambition of being "a list of all IMAX venues worldwide listed alphabetically by city within each sovereign state". In May 2012 in Special:Diff/490123356, Barry Wom changed the lede to read "This is a list of worldwide IMAX venues", and that remained the intro for the next six years.

Over the years, the article grew to a whopping 142,332 bytes maintaining the ambition to include each and every venue in the world that had IMAX installed. Let us take the Chinese section as an example: in this diff in 2012, the section is expanded to include 79 entries. None of them verified by sources. By May 2018, the section had been bloated to 360+ lines of text, complete with a navigational submenu, and included 307 entries of which only 7 were verified by sources. Only 3 had actual blue-linked entries, the rest were mere black entries. That is contrary to the guideline on stand-alone lists that says

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.
— WP:CSC#complete and verifiable

and it is a common reason for these lists ending up at AFD with the policy-based WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument for deleting them, rather than seeking a solution via WP:DEL-CONTENT prior to nomination, which is policy.

Hence, following the "No consensus"-closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (3rd nomination) that had a few WP:ITSUSEFULL "keep" !votes that did not point to the relevant guideline, WP:CLN, and did not address the list's content issues, and where I agreed with the editors that !voted delete based on WP:NOTDIR that something needed to be done here, I have tried to prune the list per policy and along the guideline that says

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers.
— WP:CSC#all notable

and that does not exclude us from including red-linked entries.

And the removal of cinemas appears to be arbitrary - for example, the United Kingdom has lost the two IMAX with Laser cinemas (which by their rarity I'd argue were notable) but retained the Odeon Metrocentre (presumably because the shopping centre has it's own wiki page).

No, the removal followed CSC, see above, to the best of my ability. In regards to "two IMAX with Laser cinemas" it would be these two:

London – Cineworld Leicester Square

Sheffield – Cineworld

both unlinked in Special:PermaLink/841580563. But looking around, the Cineworld in Sheffield could reasonably be linked/piped to Valley Centertainment, and Cineworld Leicester Square has an article at Empire, Leicester Square. A third example that I notice now is

Toronto – Ontario Place Cinesphere

also unlinked. But that also has its own article at Cinesphere. I have added these three entries again, with proper links (as well as a few more found in Category:IMAX venues).

The fact that these notable entries were included but not linked demonstrates how the obsession with completeness has overshadowed common sense editing towards a useful navigational list.

TLDR

Editing focus in this list should be on usefulness for the readers per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, not completeness. Sam Sailor 14:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of 2K digital locations

As I predicted above, there's been multiple readditions since the list was arbitrarily pruned.

2K digital IMAX locations are ten a penny. The location of such theatres doesn't make them "notable".

If this list is to have any value it needs to focus on the locations which ARE notable, namely those which have IMAX with Laser or traditional film projectors. This also gives us fixed criteria for inclusion in the list.

Barry Wom (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

On what criteria is determined "to have any value"? This listing is of a single brand, which is unique since the tech information is nowhere assembled the way it is here. That is valuable enough and quite the fixed criteria. Anything else than that looks like a subjective inclination towards IMAX techporn fans. To those hardcore fans: I am really sorry that you are so shy towards "IMAX 2k digital" - yes it is conceived and is one of the standards of IMAX as well. No need to be ashamed, really ;-)

Additionally this "need to focus" seems to me like suggesting some sort of segregation of less worthy locations like "2k digital is not worthy IMAX" similar to "black person is not worthy human". Would you Barry Wom confirm or counter with quite good arguments this claim. Are you suggesting something else? AFAIK Wikipedia would NOT in any way tolerate any suggestion in that direction.

- Please do NOT remove the 2k digital locations unless backed up with strong arguments against it! Let me remind you the title of the article: List of IMAX venues. If you think otherwise. Feel free to change the name to "short|brief" or "exclusive" list. Otherwise quite untrue/faulty. And let me remind everyone the function "find" in your browser and the automating listing in the beginning of every article.

Wetfire (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the absolutely insane comparison to saying "a black person is not worthy human" and just mention that this list would grow 3.5x in size if we were to include all 2K Digital venues. The rarity of Laser/70mm venues compared to Digital venues should be enough reason to consider them more notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sandrobost (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. Ignore as much as you like, but please do note I have made a proposal for a solution, which somehow also was ignored: Change the name of the article. The way it is currently stated suggests all IMAX venues!

On the other hand the argument of 3.5 times bigger list is no excuse for the lack of complete list. IMAX is 2k also. No matter if you ignore my comparison the facts are simple and clear.

→There are IMAX venues all over the world and they are different. The title suggest complete coverage!

→People want their country in that list with complete details on venue and the tech specs that are only here presented. Article's edit history is enough evident of that.

→A title should always be descriptive enough in what it includes. This one is quite clear what it should include. And the ignore of all venues is misleading!

→"Long list" argument is clear form of profanity having in mind the automatic listing in the beginning.

→ Another proposal: It is more logical to put separated lists for "Laser" venues and a different list for the analog old-school theaters! There's no logic even in the first TALK of "notable" venues with title "List IMAX venues". And the moment it is LIST that makes it a kind of directory.

Wetfire (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

- This is not something that should be included in the title. Take for example the "List of Catholic churches in the United States". The title does not imply that the list does not include every church, yet in the lead section it is explained that the list only includes notable ones. It's not misleading, this is a pretty standard practice when it comes to long Wikipedia lists like this. The lead section in this article immediately explains, very clearly, that this list does not include 2K Digital venues. See WP:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming

- The fact that other people want something does not mean they are right. And I think an argument could be made that the people who add venues in their country on this list are simply not aware of the list excluding 2K locations and want to add what they think is a location that was forgotten, rather than them wanting to see every IMAX location here.

- It's true that a long list in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but as Barry Wom said, "2K digital IMAX locations are ten a penny". They're so common that they are barely notable anymore. Sandrobost (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I also advise you to read #Pruning of the list for a good (although slightly outdated) overview of why this list should not include every single IMAX venue. Sandrobost (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? If I don't hear anything anymore, I'll revert it to how it was before. It's just confusing now, with the only 2K venues being in Bulgaria. Sandrobost (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Aspect Ratio.

Would it be a good idea to mention the aspect ratio of the screen next to the Laser locations? Since they can differ between 1.90:1 and 1.43:1, it seems notable enough to mention in this list. Is there anywhere to look this information up for an IMAX venue? If not, we could maybe at least add the aspect ratio to venues we know it of. Sandrobost (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, if anyone can find that info. Trivialist (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Czech Republic / Prague

Hi, the IMAX theater in Prague, Czech Republic (Praha, Česká republika) seems to have been removed from the list.

Does it not qualify, perhaps as a dual projection venue? They only use the IMAX GT 3D film projector for true IMAX screenings (i.e., nowadays only when a new Christopher Nolan film comes out). For regular screenings they use the usual IMAX Digital twin 2K projectors with xenon lamps and the old film projector is stowed away on purpose-built rails.

IIRC it's one of the last four 15/70 venues in Europe (the other three being in the UK). (I'd have to check some credible sources for that, but it's usually repeated in the cinephile media here.)

You can see here that Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar and Dunkirk were screened from the IMAX 70mm material. Fun bit: Dunkirk had an unusually long run and they were not able to screen any new releases in the auditorium while it was on because switching between the projectors was out of the question.

In Czech

opened: 20 March 2003, originally as 'Oskar IMAX'
screen size: 20 × 25 m

Current official website:

https://www.cinemacity.cz/imax

(http://imaxpraha.cz/ has expired.)

Lukas.polivka (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It does qualify actually, looks like it was removed by accident. Sandrobost (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What about the IMAX venues in African countries?

There are 6 IMAX venues in South Africa, operated under the brand Ster-Kinekor – Mall of Africa in Johannesburg, Gateway in Durban, The Grove Mall in Pretoria, Cape Gate in Cape Town, Baywest Mall in Port Elizabeth and Cradlestone Mall in Krugersdorp.

Then there's Nigeria with 1 - Filmhouse Cinemas Lekki in Lagos.

2 in Kenya - IMAX 20TH CENTURY MAMA NGINA STREET, NAIROBI & CENTURY CINEMAX GARDEN CITY MALL & IMAX THIKA ROAD, EXIT 7, NAIROBI.

Angola has 1 - ZAP CINEMAS & IMAX AV. PEDRO DE CASTRO VAN-DÚNEM LOY, 62, LUANDA.

I'm not sure which ones are the retrofitted "Lie MAX" or full size.

This is as accurate as I know. I'm new here. Please list these on the main page 2deal2 (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC) 2deal2

This list is for the Imax 70mm and Laser venues. Do you have any reference information? Before we add these, we'll need some backing info. Alaney2k (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if they're 15/70, Laser or 1.90:1 but here are the links: South Africa - Ster-Kinekor - https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/technology/ster-kinekor-opens-sixth-imax-theatre-1961359, https://www.sterkinekor.com/type/IMAX

Nigeria - Filmhouse Cinemas Lekki - https://filmhouseng.com/cinema/filmhouse-lekki/1001

Kenya - 3 confirmed - all Century Cinemax - https://www.centurycinemaxkenya.com/

Angola - Zap Cinemas - http://www.zap.co.ao/zap-cinemas/horarios

2deal2 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC) 2deal2

imax detroit

https://www.tripsavvy.com/imax-theaters-in-detroit-1084818 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.58.239 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

misplaced citation

There is an error in citations and a Slovak IMAX in Bory near Bratislava is missing.

The following entry uses citation 148 which points to Slovak IMAX in Bory.

South Korea Seoul – CGV Yongsan I-Park Mall[148] (IMAX GT Laser, 1.43:1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiMareQ (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

India

There are a lot more IMAX theatres in India:

Inox R-City Mall: Ghatkoper, Mumbai
Carnival: Wadala, Mumbai
Inox Inorbit Mall: Malad, Mumbai
Cinépolis Viviana Mall: Thane
Cinépolis Seawoods Grand Central Mall: Nerul, Navi Mumbai
Cinépolis Westend Mall: Aundh, Pune
Inox Megaplex: Lucknow
Inox RMZ Galleria Mall: Yelahanka, Bengaluru

Atleast from my interpretation all of these are 15/70mm film locations. If any of these are actually just 2K digital xenon locations let me know. Otherwise I will add these.

Also the Delhi theatre is not listed on the website. I'll remove that.

Source: https://www.imax.com/theatres

Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know these are all digital-only locations.

The Delhi theater is listed at the IMAX site - see https://www.imax.com/theatres/pvr-select-city-walk-gold-imax Barry Wom (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok revert that edit. Though I think atleast some of them are IMAX GT, I've seen films in some of them. They are purpose-built. Purpose-built theatres are not usually digital, are they?

These two:

Cinépolis Viviana Mall: Thane
Cinépolis Seawoods Grand Central Mall: Nerul, Navi Mumbai

Arnav Bhate (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

They are also much larger than the normal screens there and have curved screens. The Cinépolis India website claims that all their screens are 4K and not traditional digital. They look to be 1.43:1 aspect ratio.

http://www.cinepolisindia.com/imax

Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Purpose-built theatres are not usually digital, are they?
Any purpose-built theater built in the past decade or so will most likely be 1.90:1 and either digital or laser. According to this site [16] the two Cinépolis theaters opened in 2014 and 2020 respectively. Neither theater is listed as having laser projectors at the IMAX site: [17] and [18] Barry Wom (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

http://www.cinepolisindia.com/imax This site says they are not digital either though. Arnav Bhate (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It also doesn't mention laser projection, and they definitely won't have 15/70mm projectors. They do claim "4K technology" but then say "2 projectors with 6,500 watts each", which describes a digital 2K xenon system. I think they have assumed that having two 2K projectors equals "twice the resolution than a traditional digital projector" equals 4K, which isn't the case. Cinépolis makes the same mistake on their website in other countries too, for example Mexico [19] and Brazil [20]. Barry Wom (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

OK I understand. Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing Canadian IMAX Cineplex venues

The following is a list of the Cineplex locations in Canada with Imax theatres. This wikipedia article is missing some of them:

https://www.cineplex.com/Theatres/IMAX

Alberta Scotiabank Scotiabank Theatre Chinook Address: 6455 Macleod Trail SW Calgary, AB, T2H 0K4

Scotiabank Scotiabank Theatre Edmonton Address: #3030, 8882-170 Street Edmonton, AB, T5T 4M2

British Columbia Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Langley Address: #20090, 91A Avenue Langley, BC, V1M 3Y9

SilverCity SilverCity Riverport Cinemas Address: 14211 Entertainment Way Richmond, BC, V6W 1K4

SilverCity SilverCity Victoria Cinemas Address: 3130 Tillicum Road Victoria, BC, V9A 6T2

Manitoba Scotiabank Scotiabank Theatre Winnipeg Address: 817 St. James Street Winnipeg, MB, R3G 3L3

Newfoundland & Labrador Scotiabank Scotiabank Theatre St. John's Address: Avalon Mall, 48 Kenmount Road St. John's, NL, A1B 1W3

Nova Scotia Scotiabank Scotiabank Theatre Halifax Address: Bayer's Lake, 190 Chain Lake Drive Halifax, NS, B3S 1C5

Ontario Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Ancaster Address: 771 Golf Links Road Ancaster, ON, L9G 3K9

SilverCity SilverCity London Cinemas Address: 1680 Richmond Street London, ON, N6G 3Y9

Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Markham and VIP Address: 179 Enterprise Blvd., Suite 169 Markham, ON, L6G 0E7

Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Courtney Park Address: 110 Courtneypark Dr E Mississauga, ON, L5T 2Y3

Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Mississauga Address: 309 Rathburn Road West Mississauga, ON, L5B 4C1

Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Winston Churchill & VIP Address: 2081 Winston Park Dr. Oakville, ON, L6H 6P5

Scotiabank Scotiabank Theatre Ottawa Address: 2385 City Park Drive Ottawa, ON, K1J 1G1

Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Yonge-Dundas and VIP Address: 10 Dundas Street East, Suite 402 Toronto, ON, M5B 2G9

Cineplex Cineplex Odeon Eglinton Town Centre Cinemas Address: 22 Lebovic Avenue Toronto, ON, M1L 4V9

Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Empress Walk Address: 5095 Yonge St., 3rd Floor Toronto, ON, M2N 6Z4

Scotiabank Scotiabank Theatre Toronto Address: 259 Richmond Street West Toronto, ON, M5V 3M6

Cineplex Cinemas Cineplex Cinemas Vaughan Address: 3555 Highway 7 West Vaughan, ON, L4L 6B1

Quebec Cineplex Cinemas Cinéma Cineplex Forum et VIP Address: 2313 St. Catherine St. West Suite 101 Montréal, QC, H3H 1N2

Scotiabank Cinéma Banque Scotia Montréal Address: 977 rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest Montréal, QC, H3B 4W3

Cineplex Cinemas Cinéma Cineplex IMAX aux Galeries de la Capitale Address: 5401 boulevard des Galeries Québec, QC, G2K 1N4

Saskatchewan Scotiabank Scotiabank Theatre Saskatoon and VIP Address: 347-2nd Avenue South Saskatoon, SK, S7K 1L1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D4F:5500:C65F:E34D:CAFA:B93 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

These are likely all theaters with 2K Xenon projectors, which aren't included in the list to keep it reasonably short. Barry Wom (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Does this venue belong on the list

Does this venue belong on the list? https://www.fridleytheatres.com/location/47961/The-Palms-Theatres-and-IMAX-Showtimes

Under the "amenities" tab it says "outfitted with dual Laser Projection System." T.Y. Faltermeyer (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It would appear so. Now added. Barry Wom (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)