Talk:Theater District, Manhattan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Location

The article now states that the Theatre District extends from 42 Street to 53 Street. I think that it should read "from 41 Street to 54 Street, plus Lincoln Center", or wording to that effect. By including 41 Street, that will take in "The Nederlander Theatre"; by including 54 Street, that includes "Studio 54"; Lincoln Center will include the theatre at Lincoln Center (Vivian Beaumont) that is considered "Broadway). If this is ok, I'll go ahead and make this change later today or tomorrow. (I think I found a reference to back this up, will dig it up also). JeanColumbia (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to wait on this change and try to research more. I believe there is, or was, a designated New York City zone (not sure of the word) for "Theatre District" which may be relevant here.JeanColumbia (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jean, I think you are correct, both that there is a designated area, and that it includes 41St, because of the Nederlander. I'm fairly sure, however, that it does not include Lincoln Center. I'm unsure about whetehr Studio 54, which only became a Broaday theatre quite recently, is included or not. I'll look around and see what I can find, but in the meantime, I'm going to change to designation to include 41st St, since I'm pretty certain about that. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not definitive, but I believe that the Times Square Alliance's map indicates the extent of the official theatre district. It's an irregular area that starts at 40th Street and goes to 53rd Street, from east of Sixth Avenue to west of Eighth Avenue. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been surfing through the city's official site, nyc.gov, but have been unable to come up with anything definitive. It may be that the "theatre district" is an officially recognized unofficial area -- that is, there are many documents that refer to existence of the theatre district (how could they ignore it?), but few that define it with any specificity, which leads me to believe that, unlike historic districts and zoning area, it's not been officially desginated. One document I found says: "Today, the Broadway district stretches from 41st street to 53rd street between Sixth Avenue and Ninth Avenue, encompassing 39 theatres – only four of which are actually located on Broadway!", which corresponds well to the Theatre Alliance map (except for 41st St instead of 40th Street), but note that it says "Broadway district" and not "theatre district". Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's something official. According to this PDF document from the city's Department of Community Planning, the "Theatre Subdistrict" runs from 40th Street to 57th Street and from Sixth Avenue to Eighth Avenue, with an additional area west of Eighth from 42nd to 45th. Given this, I think we'd be justified in extending our definition to 54th Street to cover Studio 54, so I'll make that change. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ed, that's just a great find. JeanColumbia (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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

The result of the proposal was moved. Not going to make me popular but, based on the arguments below, UCN with ENGVAR wins hands down! --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Theatre District, New York → Theater District, New York – American (rather than British) spelling, as this is an American location; The current name should be a redirect to the new name Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. When refering to Broadway Theatre, as this name does, the -re ending is correct. See any Playbill, the Broadway League, or just about any article on it. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is about the name of the district of NYC and not the name of the type of theater. —  AjaxSmack  04:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Um, repeating the same comment three times in a discussion is just a little obnoxious. But regardless, what type of theatre do you think the "Theatre District" name refers to? It's not movie theaters! The district is so called explicitly and precisely because it's the location of all but one Broadway theatre, So, yes, it is about the type of theatre, as that is what the district is named after! oknazevad (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Your comment does to me seem to still ignore wp policy. Which is discussed elsewhere in this string. What is important is the most frequently used name. Not necessarily what Playbill says. And that of course leads to the opposite conclusion of the one you have reached. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I disagree. The most commonly used name amongst the sources that are most knowledgable about the subject use "-re". In my editorial judgement, some sources are worth more because they specifically cover the topic. That's the sort of common sense that one should use when applying policy. oknazevad (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks for addressing the issue. I looked at a number of the sources. I don't see a basis for your bare assertion that those RSs that approach this differently than you do are less knowledgeable, or worth less. See, e.g., The Historical Atlas of New York City, The Encyclopedia of New York City, publications of The Real Estate Board of New York, publications of the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission, Rand McNally, Frommer's, Michelin Guide, Time Out, Let's Go New York, New York Magazine, the New York Post, the Village Voice, the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, UPI, Reuters, NBC News, ABC News, and CBS News. Are you just reaching that conclusion because they -- the clear majority -- have a different view than you do?Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The most common name for a subject is generally used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. Common usage, for this New York location, is American spelling by well over a 2–1 margin. Cf. 4.18 million ghits for "theater district" "New York", versus 1.75 million ghits for the British spelling.

"Furthermore, this article discusses the differences in the British and American spellings nicely ("The main thing that most English speakers and learners need to know is that theater is the preferred spelling in American English, and theatre is preferred virtually everywhere else.").Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• • As the note right on the Braodway Theatre article states, it is a prominent exception to the common rule of American spelling of "theater". It is our duty to properly inform people of that.oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe that any such duty exists; certainly not with regard to the name used for a wp article. Please see wp:commonname ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."). Best. Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment this appears to use the wrong disambiguator, since it is a part of NYC, it should say ", New York City", similar to how other city district articles are defined by their city, not their subnational division. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's possible. When/if the change is made, I'm open to changing as well the back half of the new name to "New York City", if there is not consensus disagreement with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. A good proposal, and well motivated. But in fact "theatre" is a common spelling in American English. It is given as a second choice in M-W Collegiate, Random House Webster's College Dictionary, and Webster's New World. In none of these popular American dictionaries is "theatre" marked as British. On the other hand, the rest of the world does not use the spelling "theater". Therefore, go for commonality. See WP:COMMONALITY at WP:MOS. ☺ Noetica^Tea?
  • WP:COMMONALITY assumes non-American users could not comprehend "theater". Give them a little credit. —  AjaxSmack  05:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Noetica. But as I read it the thrust of our common name policy is that we prefer to go with the name that is most frequently used. Not with one that is a "second choice".--Epeefleche (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN and WP:ENGVAR. Sources support the American spelling. Although Americans can be insecure about their orthography at times, in this case Google Books results show a 3:2 preference for "Theater" over "Theatre". Nyc.gov hits slightly favour "Theater" over "Theatre". The lone cited source available online uses "Theater". —  AjaxSmack  05:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• support If theatre is given as second choice in US-oriented dictionaries, then theater id the fist choice. It's that simple. The language variant of the subject country determines the article. If we were writing a general article we would use theatre; if we were talking about NAmerica, where the two English speaking countries use different spelling, it would be a more difficult case and I could make an argument in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. While "theater" may be the more common spelling in America, Broadway tends to prefer "theatre". -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see our policy, which is reflected in wp:commonname: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." --Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is about the name of the district and not the name of the type of theater. —  AjaxSmack  04:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Almost all American theatres spell their name with -re; all categories above and below Category:Theatres in New York City are spelled that way. Only 3 out of 76 Category:Broadway theatres use -er. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is about the name of the district and not the names of theaters. —  AjaxSmack  04:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Please see wp policy, discussed elsewhere in this string. It leads to an opposite conclusion of the one you have reached.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. In the U.S., the -re spelling is merely an affectation of the theater industry to appear more highbrow, as Brits are stereotypically more cultured than Yanks. General interest sources, including among others The Encyclopedia of New York State, the AAA Tour Book and Google Maps, prefer "theater district". 69.95.62.206 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Mild support because the companies involved do seem to prefer "re" but most of its customers would use the "er" spelling. Red Slash 22:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. While the !vote at this point appears to be 5-4 in favor of the proposal, I would point out that when closing these AfDs we generally look to which !votes have policy on their side. The policy here (wp:commonname) is amply discussed above. Oh, and while more far-ranging than our focus here, this is an interesting chart.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Recent edits

After all the above discussion and the above close, the non-consensus spelling was input into this article, which I have now reverted here.

Also, I made a deletion here with a clear edit summary of "d uncited OR or POV about 'may be considered', per wp:v". I was reverted here (no edit summary), and the challenged, non-cited text was restored, without the editor supplying an inline citation, flouting wp:v ("Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ").

I'm making an entreaty for collegial editing, in accordance with consensus and wp:v.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(squeeze) The section "Other nearby theatre areas" seems entirely uncontroversial to me. I don't understand what could possibly be original research or point-of-view editing there which would require verification from reliable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Collegial editing my Aunt Fanny. The RM above was conducted without any notice given to the logical place to inform interested parties, which was WikiProject New York City, which means that only those few people who have this specific article on their watchlist were aware of it. When I saw that the article had been moved, I assumed it was a mistake and reverted it, being totally unaware of the RM discussion and Regent Parks' close of it. Regent Park wisely decided not to contest my reversion of the move -- perhaps because with my "retroactive !vote" the consensus was no longer so clear, and the new consensus (with my !vote) was opposed to the move or, at the very least, was a no consensus, which translates into no move. Epeefleche, on the other hand, decided to take matters into his own hands and make bulk reversions. Unlike myself, who was totally unaware of the RM discussion, Epeefleche knew about the RM, he knew about my unknowing reversion, and he knew that Regents Park had decided not to move war. Despite all this, Epeefleche decided to impose his own beliefs on the matter, and moved the article back, without consideration for any new consensus that was indicated. That, in short, stinks. Epeefleche wants "collegial editing" when it suits his purposes, but is unwilling to provide it himself when the ball in his court -- then, he just does what we wants to do, without any consideration of the opinions of other editors. As I said, that's just lousy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The move discussion was conducted with the required notice, and a healthy number of editors not only read it. But also engaged in robust discussion with regard to it. When you reverted the article, you did so despite ample green-colored discussion on the talk page which you moved, reflecting the discussion and the consensus close. I still don't understand why you reverted a sysop here, and me at two dozen related pages, without bothering to even look at this talkpage first. When the consensus close was pointed out to you, you then still edited against consensus, and (as indicated above) inserted the non-consensus spelling in this article. What in the world was that all about (I ask for the second time).

This discussion on your talkpage that Regents and I had with you doesn't explain it either. And most recent efforts to understand you there met with this. Did you miss that Regents said there as well "The question is not what Broadway theaters prefer to call themselves but rather what the district is called (or how it is spelled). And that is, more often than not, Theater." and "I think your call is the wrong one"?

An editor can't come along as you did and say:

"Oh, I see there was a consensus close, but I don't like it, and I have a non-consensus view, and had they considered my non-consensus view then my view would have suddenly been the consensus ... so -- even though the closing sysop just now told he thought my view was wrong -- I'll just insert precisely the opposite of what the consensus close actually called for."

That's really your excuse for editing against consensus?

My only reversions were of your against-consensus reverts of my edits. Mine were in keeping with the close. Yours were directly in opposition to the close.

I engaged in collegial editing. I participated in a move discussion. A sysop closed it. I edited in accord with its consensus. After the close.

BMK -- you, in contrast, reverted a sysop and another editor on a couple of dozen pages. Didn't read the talkpage of the main page you reverted -- which clearly reflected the move discussion. Left me a note but then reverted two dozen articles in 14 minutes without waiting for a response. Your reverts were against consensus. Your rationale (where you supplied it) missed the entire point of wiki policy in this area.

And I'm not sure what I did to deserve your diatribe and assertions that you own the related article and I should not edit it here.

And you appear to be similarly flouting wp policy, now repeatedly deleting RS-sourced information on the same general subject as reflected om my requests that you desist here.

Yes, I would appreciate collegial editing, respect for a consensus close rather than you editing directly against it, and you respecting wp:v -- by not, as you just did, restoring challenged uncited material, without supplying an inline citation.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I would save your comments for the RM discussion I have opened below Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• BMK -- as requested earlier this week, please do not delete RS-supported material as you again did here, and please don't start an edit war. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)