Jump to content

Talk:Olympia Theatre (New York City)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This rewrite and expansion is a work in progress, please be patient.

[edit]

This rewrite and expansion is a work in progress, please be patient. I will continue to work on it as I have time. Thanks. JGKlein (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

The post 1935 building should be split off as it is not the same building as the Olympia at all, despite sitting on the same site, and despite originally boasting a movie theatre named for one of the Olympia's venues. The split is already set up following recent edits, as it just becomes a matter of cutting and pasting into the new article (with appropriate attribution, of course). oknazevad (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this split. Though, to be honest, isn't this the same as 1530 Broadway? (I think it's just commonly called the Bow Tie Building because Bow Tie Partners owns it, though I may have to do some research. The post-1935 building is definitely notable though.) – Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whether referred to by its address, its old name of the Criterion Center, or it current name of the Bow-Tie Building, it's the same building. And it's the same owners, too; Bow-Tie Partners is the modern company of the Moss family. The name refers to the bow-tie shape of Times Square and is also used for the family's modern cinema chain, Bow Tie Cinemas. Strangely enough, the old Criterion movie theatre that used to be in the building was owned by the Moss family along with the rest of the building, but they leased out the operation to the United Artists Theatres chain (itself now part of Regal Cinemas) instead of operating it themselves. But I digress. Either way, yeah, it's the same building, but not the same as the old Olympia. oknazevad (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think covering a subsequent building, particularly a theater building, was n the same site in the same article is reasonable. But having separate articles with lots of duplication isn't the end of the world either. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]