Jump to content

Talk:Theater District, Manhattan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Theater District, New York → Theatre District, New York – The recent move of this article from "Theatre District, New York" to "Theater District, New York" was conducted without significant input from the Wikipedia community. No effort was made to notify WikiProject New York City, which means that the discussion was limited to those who happened to have this specific article on their watchlist. I am re-opening the discussion primarily because I believe the proper name for the article is Theatre District, New York, but I'm willing to abide by the decision of any discussion which is conducted in a proper manner, with the input of the Wikipedia community. I request that this discussion not be closed by Regents Park, not because I believe he is prejudiced (I emphatically do not) but to relieve him of any personal responsibility in connection to this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. The move discussion was opened appropriately. With all required notice. And, in fact, a healthy and ample number of editors made their way to the discussion, and engaged in robust discussion. The week-long discussion just closed. I don't see the basis for the assertion that it was "without significant input"; precisely the opposite. (Nor do I understand the comment as to Regents Park, but if we don't re-open that doesn't require explanation).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    It is re-opened, right here, and right now. It you don't care to comment on the issues, fine, that's your choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as I did before. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Both spellings are used locally, but it appears to me from web search results that "Theatre District" is the preferred spelling for the name of the neighborhood, whereas "theater district" is the common spelling when this is a generic term. Since this article is about the named neighborhood, the "Theatre" spelling is appropriate (notwithstanding the spelling used for the governing body for the city's zoning district for this area). --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as before. If it was a generic name, then obviously we'd go with the common American spelling, but it isn't, which is why it's capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    It is a proper name and not a generic one. It still uses the American spelling generally and in official contexts and the European one only irregularly and unofficially. Feel free to change your vote. — LlywelynII 23:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, just as I opposed the previous move. Looking throughout the various sources, it seems that there is a slight edge for the -re spelling overall, even if its overall pretty even. In such a case, where both are valid, we should retain the existing spelling. And the last move was better called no consensus at best. The evidence was flawed, too, as the ngram did nothing to how that it was talking about New York only (there are many other "theater districts" around the US). oknazevad (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, as reflected with diffs below, the more common spelling is clearly "-er". By well over a 2–1 margin on ghits. And a 3-2 margin on gbooks. As to the ngram, see discussion of that below as well, showing a margin of 7-1 in favor of "Broadway Theater District" over the "-re" spelling.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as the person who started this request. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that articles use the common name of the subject, which, as noted above is "Theatre District" in New York City. Although the common spelling in American English is "theater", older cities on the East Coast, such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston (and possibly others) preserve the tradition of using the oider "-re" spelling. This is apparent in the names of every Broadway theatre, and the vast majority of Off- and Off-off-Broadway theatres as well. It can also be seen in the name of the mayoral agency which assists entertainment companies to cut through red tape: The Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting [1]. It is true that one will find on the city's website, nyc.gov, the use of both "Theatre District" and "Theater District" (or "subdistrict"), and this appears to be caused by people assuming that the normal American English spelling applies, without having knowledge of the local tradition. To those who are aware of it, however, "Theatre District" is the only proper spelling in this specific instance, of this specific area. It makes little or no sense to have a specially designated area, full of dozens of theatres, all of which use the "-re" spelling, and call it the "Theater District". Here in New York City, we do not, we call it the "Theatre District", which should be the name of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Please change your title of this post to "Comment", per convention. Your nomination is already considered a !vote. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No. It's quite clear as written. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
(A) He is right about policy. You're effectively giving yourself a duplicate vote by bolding yourself again.
(B) I bolded the rest of your intro so it includes your comment announcing the duplicate vote, but it remains unclear. Your phrasing could just as easily mean that this is a vote for the reasons set forth by the initial poster, which is obviously not what's going on here. Better if you simply removed the duplicate vote. — LlywelynII 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
That's a very roundabout way of saying 'Even where there's evidence I'm wrong, we should just ignore it'. Of course, Wiki doesn't really work that way. "Theatre' shows up 3:2 less commonly on NYC.gov and only in nonofficial contexts. The actual, official district is clearly spelt "theater"; it's the more common use at the NY Times and the NYC government; and it's more common across Ngrams. Just because it's not your preference doesn't mean that trumps policy. — LlywelynII 23:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Both are correct. Bearing in mind that because it relates to an American topic, spellings should be in American English (however wrong they are to British English, which after all is the correct version of English ;) ). But Wikipedia:COMMONNAME trumps it all and that should be what reigns. MisterShiney ✉ 22:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
So if both are correct, does that mean you agree we should retain the original version chosen? oknazevad (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The current version is "-er", and this is a move discussion aimed at not retaining the current version. So if we were to "retain" anything, it would be the current "-er" version.
A rather odd way of looking at it, since the article has been called "Theatre District" since I created it 6 years ago, right up until yesterday. So my RM is to return the article to the title given to it by the original author, and the one it has had for those 6 years without any muss or fuss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
As demonstrated by the diffs in this string, the common name (which MisterShiney points to as controlling) in the media has been the "-er" spelling. With all due respect to the fact that you created the article (and understanding you have a somewhat dim view of my knowledge)-- this has resulted in some muss as it was pointed out in 2011 ("New York City actually spells the district as theater, not theatre (See this 2008 city zoning document from the City Planning Commission, "Special Purpose Districts", especially page 190, "Appendix A, Map 1", and page 127 "81-70 Special...) and a similar effort was made to address it in 2012); about half the edits for a number of months were on this spelling issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
WP policy -- frequently used name. The applicable wp policy here is wp:commonname (also called wp:UCN). It states (emphasis added):

"The most common [or frequently used] name for a subject ... as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural."

The current "-er" spelling is appropriate and should be retained, because in accord with the policy, it is the most frequently used name for the district. The most common usage is the "-er" spelling, by well over a 2–1 margin. Cf. 4.1 million ghits for "Theater District" "New York", versus 1.8 million ghits for the "-re" spelling. Aljax pointed out that Google Books results show a 3-2 preference for "'Theater District' 'New York'" over "'Theatre District' 'New York'".
This is supported by a look at the coverage. See, e.g., A Change of Scene: Proposals for New York's Theater District, published by The Real Estate Board of New York, Frommer's, Time Out, Let's Go New York, the New York Post, the Village Voice, the Huffington Post,the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News. As well as The Historical Atlas of New York City, The Encyclopedia of New York City, publications of the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission, Rand McNally, Michelin Guide, New York Magazine, the New York Times, the Washington Post, UPI, Reuters, NBC News, and ABC News.
Recognizable and natural. Furthermore, it meets our wp policy criteria of being recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic. And our criteria of naturalness – a title that readers are likely to look for or search with.
Official name. The district's "official name" is not necessarily determinative. WP:commonname states: "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."
But in any event, even the official name supports a finding that the spelling should be "-er". The official New York City (NYC.com) Visitor Guide calls it the Theater District. If you search the site www.nyc.gov for "Theater District", you get 316 hits. But, if you search it for "Theatre District" (both searches in quotes), you get only 54 hits. That's a 6-1 margin in favor of "-er".
New York City Planning Commission Chairman Joseph Rose and NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Hess referred to in a press release as "the Theater District". And the official site of Times Square refers to "Theater District Dining". And the -er spelling is the one used for the governing body for New York City's zoning district for this area. The New York City Zoning Resolution on the area uses the "-er" spelling; See pp. 81-70 though 81-79, as well as various other references throughout.
MOS; American English. The applicable MOS is WP:ENGVAR. It states: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Here, the strong tie is to American English, as this is an American location.
American English prefers "-er". "Theater", as pointed out in the first discussion, is the first choice spelling in American English, in M-W Collegiate, Random House Webster's College Dictionary, and Webster's New World. 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." This is an interesting chart, showing the strong and increasing preference for "Theater District" over "Theatre District" in American English in google books (ten-fold in the year 2000).
Move arguments. Less important than: a) what the most frequently used name is; b) what the official name is (both of which support retaining the current "-er" spelling), and c) what common American English usage is, is what some support !voters point to: what Playbill says (though it is noteworthy that even there, when Joe Papp sought to save the districts constituents, he started a "Save the Theaters" movement), or what buildings in the district are called by their owners. Simliarly, nom's appeal to us to move this article because he asserts personal knowledge as to what New Yorkers call the district is not only at odds with my personal experience -- we simply don't reach these determinations based on an editor's claim to personal experience.Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Your argument rather misses the point entirely. The question has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the "-er" spelling is standard American English, I believe everyone concedes that it is -- but we're talking about a proper noun here. Your argument boils down to this: the standard American spelling of a certain girl's name is "Lisa", so if the subject of an article spells it "Leesa", we should ignore that and user "Lisa" instead. But we don't do that, because WP:COMMONNAME ia trumps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You're completely right about commonname. He gave you evidence that it's '-er'. More importantly, we are talking about a proper name and there is one. It's Theater (note the URL). Feel free to change your vote. — LlywelynII 23:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
That chart bolsters an oppose !vote; not the opposite. It reflects "-er" usage as having been preferred every year since the 1970s, in "New York theater district". With a 2.5-1 preference for it, even today. Thus, "-er" is clearly the most commonly used form of the name in what you presented. Under our policy that suggests we should use the "-er" form. We work off of facts, not projected trends.
Anyway, note the small sample size in your example. A search that generates 8x as many hits is here, comparing "Broadway Theater District" with its variation. As you can see, the current margin is 7-1 in favor of "Broadway Theater District", over the "-re" spelling. Even more emphatically than what you presented, demonstrating that the "-er" spelling is the more common spelling.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place We have a proper procedure for reviewing the close of a move discussion, WP:Move review. The procedure was proposed on April 23, 2012, and has been in actual use since June 2012, with good results. If I had not myself expressed an opinion in this, I would close this discussion myself, and ask it be restarted there. I point out from the instructions to that page "Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion." The purpose of having a formal process is to eliminate the effect of bringing up the same style-rerlated issues indefinitely until whoever was most persistent got the result they wanted. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I was totally unaware of WP:Move review. I was aware that one had been suggested, but had never heard that it had been implemented. What do you suggest I do? Close this myself and open a review request there? Have someone else close this? Port the comments from this second RM over there? I'm willing to follow your recommendation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • BMK -- I understand you disagree with the outcome of the just-ended move discussion. WP:move review is not, however, a forum to re-argue the closed discussion (which is all that the above comments do). So my reading of what DGG quoted above suggests that it certainly would not make sense to move the above comments there.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on analogous experience at Del Rev, it is often hard to avoid discussing the actual merits, because a close is good only if it is rational and takes all the factors into account. And one of the practical purposes of Del Rev is not just to cure errors, but to give an opportunity for complaints against an XfD and a chance to reconsider, with the involvement of people who might never have seen the initial discussion and can sometimes put it in context better than the people originally disputing. The virtue of Del Rev is that it a single defined avenue to reconsider, and gives the finality of an appeals judgment. Of all possible types of disputes, those involving style are the most intractable, and it is good to have finality. But yes, I do suggest to BMK that they simply accept the initial judgment. If it had come out the other way, I would not think it worthwhile to go further. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
@DGG: Sorry, just shutting down is one option that I'm not willing to take. As I said in my opening of this RM, I'll accept the verdict of a move discussion which has been properly publicized, but not one where the natural audience consists of the watchers of the page, which in this case is under 30 people. I'm also willing to go to WP:Move review (now that I know that it exists), because there are explicit - and I think quite valid - arguments to be made about the close ("no consensus" would have been a more reasonable conclusion given the !vote count; WP:COMMONNAME is controlling, not WP:ENGVAR; the fact that WP:RETAIN wasn't taken into account and the choice of the originator of the article wasn't adhered to; the failure to publicize and so on.) If I make those arguments there and prevail, we'd just be back here anyway, but I'm wiling to do that if it seems important that process be followed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I do think it important that process be followed. It sets a bad precedent for move discussions to be reopened immediately after a close, especially one by a respected editor which, though you may disagree with it, was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The best possible course, IMO, is for you as the proposer to close this discussion and open a request at WP:Move review with links pointing to this and the previous discussion. 69.95.62.61 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see any consensus in the discussion above. At best, a standoff. There can be no dogma regarding the spelling of theater/theatre since both are correct, even in the US. Consideration of the customary spelling for the subject at hand must be the rule. In New York, regarding Broadway, the -re spelling has been more the norm in the business and discussion of putting on plays and building houses to watch them in. I vote for a return to the -re spelling. Markhh (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Markhh. You are of course correct that in the US both are acceptable. As reflected above, one is preferred (the -er spelling). Closes are made by applying wp policy. The relevant wp policy, wp:commonname, focuses on which is the most common [or frequently used] name to describe the subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources. That is overwhelmingly the current article's "-er" spelling, as demonstrated above. It is also the name more commonly used by New York City, where the district sits. And is the more common American English usage. Those are the factors that -- in a decision based on wp policy -- we look to. Not whether the owners of 40 building in the district use a different name that is not the more common name used in the media, by the city itself, or in American English.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, closes are made by applying policy, and the applicable policies here are WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:RETAIN, because the common name of the Theatre District in New York City is "Theatre District", which was the name used by the editor who created the article 6 years ago, and which remained in the article until the unwarranted change was made a few days ago. You appear to think that WP:ENGVAR has something to do with it -- that was the reason you gave for requesting the name change above -- but you are totally incorrect in that assumption, because it does not apply to proper names. The RM should never have been closed on the basis of an inapplicable policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Closes are made by applying policy. Many of the above comments (such as, "I know it to be true", and "There is a more common name but both names are used") ignore policy. Non-policy arguments are weighted, appropriately. The close, and the consensus at the move discussion, were that wp:common name (the policy, which has us defer to the fact that the "-er" spelling is the more common one used by others, as amply reflected above) was in accord with the MOS. Both pointed to the "-er" name. But if you think the close was wrong, I imagine you will seek a move review, as you appear to have offered to do, and some have suggested you consider doing.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment As an outsider, drawn here only by a notice at WT:AT, I would only say that the caption to the first image looks odd as it is now. Every named institution is spelt "theatre", and then the district is spelt "theater". If there are balanced arguments either way (and I'm not in a position to say whether this is the case or not), consistency within the article suggests the "re" spelling. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Coming to this issue now for the first time, and reading through the now-closed previous dicussion, it seems obvious to me that that initial move request was closed precipitously, and in spite of the far better arguments for denying the request. My own !vote would be to reopen that initial discussion. User:Epeefleche has made many serious and well-intended arguments in favor of the initial move request, but is very nearly alone in his/her position (which doesn't really signify in a !vote), but more to the point, clearly also does not have the preponderance of argument in favor of the initial move. And if the closer has already expressed an opinion on the issue, as s/he has done as linked by User:Orlady above, this should automatically disqualify that person from closing. I believe the closer's neutrality is fatally compromised. Milkunderwood (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    Milunderwood, would you mind clearly specifying, with diffs, why my neutrality is "fatally compromised"? Merely having read consensus from a discussion does not compromise my objectivity in any way. I'm not saying I will (or will not) close this discussion but do not appreciate an attack on my capacity to be objective. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Beyond My Ken#Theater District:
  • 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. (This assertion appears to be contradicted by several respondents.)
  • (In response to the following post by User talk:Beyond My Ken): You don't have to convince me (though I think your call is the wrong one).
This was not meant to be an "attack" - simply an observation of what appears to be a predisposition. Would you dispute that? Milkunderwood (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Those were conclusions drawn from the discussion. That does not preclude me from drawing different conclusions from a different discussions, or viewing a different discussion objectively, as your "fatally compromised" statement implies. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Then I apologize for misunderstanding. Whether your statements preceded or followed the closing, it seems to me that at the very least, the assertion that the district is commonly known with "er" rather than "re" is pretty clearly refuted. Without impugning your own integrity or fairness, I strongly suggest that a different administrator be requested to supervise any further reopening or closing, since you have now made your own conclusions clear, and it would not seem that any further action could lead to a more open-minded result. Milkunderwood (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Since you continue to believe that I cannot objectively view evidence or that I would close a move discussion where I had a clear personal opinion, let me just point out that I could easily have merely closed this second move request since consensus has already been called and asked BMK to go for a move review instead. A quick look at the record of move reviews would tell you where that would have ended up. I understand you think I've incorrectly called consensus, and that's fair, but questioning my objectivity in the face of evidence to the contrary is patently unfair and a tad insulting. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I assure you no "insult" was intended. I'm not sure what you mean by "in the face of evidence". I came here having no dog in this fight, but reading through all the comments posted in both discussions, there is no question in my own mind that the many arguments against the initial move had by far the better position, in virtually every detail. Let's leave personalities and perceived "insults" aside. Would there be any objection to requesting a different administrator to look at these two discussions with a fresh eye? Milkunderwood (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is my objection. By requesting a different administrator you're saying that I cannot objectively close it. The "face of evidence" here is that, were I anything other than objective, I would have closed it already as out of process and asked the proposer to initiate a move review instead, as is the procedure. Not that I'm saying I will close it but rather that your request is out of line and insulting, intended or not. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment back in 2005 there was a similar debate about moving theater to theatre. I opposed the move on WP:ENGVAR, principles but the majority of people took part much to my surprise argued that as "theatre" is a professional affectation by players and others in the industry in the US it should be moved (In those days vote counting was still frequently used for deciding move requests, when guidance had been discussed and rejected). I suspect the arguments for keeping this at Theatre District, New York are based on similar arguments to those in 2005 and that in modern Wiki parlance using "theatre" meets the AT policy requirements of "Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic". I have no axe to grind on this particular article name, but I thought it useful to point out that there are policy issues other than WP:UCN and WP:ENGVAR to bring to this particular table. -- PBS (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Full-fledged oppose on move policy grounds. I mildly supported the initial proposal, but we have a place to do move reviews, and this is not it. I would close this right now and open up a WP move review, which is quite likely to be successful. Red Slash 21:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Terminating this discussion and starting over again at a new venue might be a good demonstration of a wikiprocess, but it would not achieve the purpose of resolving the issue as efficiently as possible. It should be possible to settle the issue on this page -- and at this point, that's the least disruptive route to take. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that's the opinion I've come to as well. If I had known (or remembered) about the review process, I wouldn't have started this second RM, but now that it's gone so far, I think that stopping it in order to take the issue elsewhere is just a bit WP:BURO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have never participated in this discussion. I did participate in the previous move discussion that ended prior to this one. Having seen a move reversal of the previously closed move, isn't this what WP:MRV is for? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:37, 25 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) 01:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Eh. The city is still called "New York" often enough. We have the article on it at New York City for disambiguation purposes, and could easily change it to "New York City" here, but it's secondary. oknazevad (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on WP:UCN with the caveat that either WP:TITLECHANGES or some move review process may apply in a fashion I'm not qualified to judge. I asked a friend who is an NYC theater professional which spelling seemed more appropriate using the criterion of common usage. He said that he thinks -er is most commonly used for the district "in a generic (non-organizational) context". That matches my sensibilities as a Manhattan resident and theatergoer, given the distinction between the spelling for the "Theater District" and the individual "theatres". It's a close one and my inner Tory loyalist sheds a tear behind his monocle at the thought of it, but I do think the district itself is definitely most commonly spelled with an -er and that the title of the article should reflect that. As an aside, whether it was appropriate to re-open the merge discussion or not, I did come here via Beyond My Ken's post on the WikiProject New York City talk page, and I do appreciate his flagging the topic there. It's far from an urgent move, so a longer discussion period makes sense to me. -Thomas Craven (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2013
I can go along with Thomas Craven's distinction. I believe MisterShiney's post, above, that both are correct makes a similar point. Concerning the complaint about "recognizability", if non-US readers could comprehend "er", it would seem as though American readers can puzzle out "re" with equal facility; PBS was correct to point this out. Personally I tend to deprecate what I see as fanatical adherence to WP:UCN as trumping all other considerations, but that's neither here nor there. WP:ENGVAR doesn't enter into the question, because while "er" may be more common in general US usage, "re" is also very common. If the article is to retain the "er" spelling, then I think it advisable to have the beginning of the lead be changed to read something like "The Theater District, also widely known as the "Theatre District", is an area in Midtown Manhattan where ... " [etc]. And again, I apologize to regentspark for my rudeness. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. the subject is a proper name, so I don't think WP:ENGVAR applies. Add to that, there seem to be sources that indicate both spellings are acceptable. But most importantly, the name of this article has been stable for six years, which makes it the strongest justification for leaving it as it is. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this messes up the RM further or not, evidently it isn't WP:CANVASS, but since that is how I came here I should declare it. I had seen it listed on WP:RM anyway. Support per User:Michael Bednarek QUOTE "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." UNQUOTE - it may be some kind of Anglophile affectation. Theater/Theatre District seems roughly matched in printed sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether the 2.3 million more references in g-hits, with well over a 2-1 margin, in favor of the "-er" spelling might not be viewed as possibly more than a "roughly matched" usage. And suggest that the "-er" spelling is the more common name? Diffs supporting that and other preponderant usage of the "-er" spelling are found above. WP:common name suggests that we focus on that, rather than usage chosen in wp categories. And, of course, the city itself seems to have somewhat of a predisposition to use the "-er" spelling when officially describing its district.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Epeefleche I'm sorry, what can I say, a look above shows 8:4 actual Support:Oppose which would indicate that the majority of editors here, most of whom I recognise as experienced colleagues, do not think that following a slight predominance in Google Books is the only criteria here. Having now just looked at the page history, I'd additionally comment that if this 8:4, or wherever it ends, gets it reverted back to status quo from 2007 to 21 February 2013 then maybe the status quo is where it should be. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I was commenting on the policy, and the diffs (and all of the diffs--even the one by a supporter, oddly--show more than a "slight" preponderance as to common name usage). A number of editors based their arguments not on article title policy, but on other sentiments. And some ignored the diffs as well. That all is taken into account in a close. Arguments based on policy are weightier than those based on other sentiments, and arguments based on diffs are weightier than those based on un-supported statements.
Also, I note that sysop DGG supported the -er spelling in the discussion earlier this month. And sysop Regentspark also wrote "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 in addition to those two editors, and the four you presumably refer to (AjaxSmack, RedSlash, ThomasCraven, and me), we have Milkunderwood saying "I can go along with Thomas Craven's distinction", and Mr. IP agreeing with DGG that this move discussion is not appropriate and should be closed. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
And DGG confirmed his view after the above post: "Yes. This is actually one of the clearest cases I've seen where geographic usage of a spelling in an article about that area over-rides the otherwise generally preferred spelling. Normally, I avoid such MOS-based discussions, but there's an important principle here, and it affects a great many articles on the US theater."[3].--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I still very much support the move-back request, and believe it was incorrectly moved to start with. The distinction I was going along with was -er is most commonly used for the district "in a generic (non-organizational) context". To me there is no question but that they are "theatres", including theatres on Broadway, and generally located within the "Theatre District". Knowledgeable theatre-goers go to the theatre; it's the rubber-neckers who might try out a play at a so-called "theater", and its these "hicks", if you will, that all those quoted sources are aimed at. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. But our policy cares primarily about what the media (such as the the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and New York magazine) use, precisely when "pandering" to the "hicks". Which is more commonly "-er". The reason is, those hicks are also the users of wp. WP:commonname is clear that it does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; and that it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. (Although, here too, the "official name" for a city's district is a name given by the city (which most commonly uses the "-er" spelling, not by what the owners of 40 buildings within the district call their building).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, look at the links in this discussion. -re is used (less commonly) in a "generic (non-organizational) context" and -er is used (preferentially) in reliable sources and (almost exclusively) in specific organizational contexts by the NYC government. Brits and snobs go to the 'theatre'; Americans go to the 'theater' which may or may not call itself a 'theatre' to imply its upscale pretensions. The NYC gov't and the NY Times are not aimed at 'hicks'. — LlywelynII 08:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the sources are split on the matter, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. (However, it sounds like the most reputable sources, such as the City of New York, use the American spelling.) We should use the spelling that is more correct given the context. It's the New York theater district, so use the American spelling. Also, no one needs to notify any Wikiproject of the move. The unit of consistency on Wikipedia is the article, not the Wikiproject. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Epeefleche and Darkfrog above: the most reputable sources do use the American spelling (the closest exception – the NYTimes – seems to use 'theater' consistently everywhere except the restaurant section), there are procedural reasons to oppose a remove, and most importantly (in the lack of some variant CN) ENGVAR. Howevermuch specific theaters may prefer to gild things with European spellings, the district itself is in America. We're not just making our own page look bad: Google searches produce essentially a textwall of 'theater' with our old 'theatre' sprawled in larger font across the right side of the page. — LlywelynII 23:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    See also Apteva's Ngram link above, which supports the opposite of his vote. — LlywelynII 23:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Similarly, NYC may have a Office of ... Theatre ... but official city documents about the subdistrict seem consistent in their use of Theater.
    It's the Theater Subdistrict Council, it has a clearly marked official map (at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcla/downloads/pdf/TSD_boundary[2].pdf), and that really should be the end of the push from anyone other than diehard Anglophiles. — LlywelynII 23:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll have to be neutral because I haven't pored over every detail of this. But there are several things I can think of that need to be considered here: The spelling "theatre" is very often used in American English to mean "playhouse or other venue with a stage" (which is of course also very often spelled "theater") vs. a movie house, which is almost always spelled "theater" (except in the case of a historic playhouse that has been converted to a movie house, and which has retained a name with "Theatre" in it). Per ENGVAR, this has obvious strong national ties. Non-American (not even Canadian) sources are not of any relevance in this discussion; if an overwhelming majority of American reliable sources (not just recent ones, but those covering the entire history of the NYC Theat[er|re] [Subd|D]istrict, use "theater" then that's pretty much the end of it. A countervailing claim, overwhelmingly supported by evidence, that it's a formal proper name, not an informal one, could overrule that, if a preponderance of reliable sources that treat it as a proper name, not an unofficial appellation, use "Theatre". Scanning above, I see several arguments that seem to suggest this. Note, however, that "reliable sources" here does not just mean "theatrical sources", or "New York-based sources", it means all sources that reliably present infomration on the topic in American English (see WP:SSF for why it's fallacious to try to limit "reliable" to topical/local sources only). Lastly, a recent fad among businesses in this area to use the Theatre spelling instead of Theater (if there is any such fad, as someone suggested) is not terribly relevant if sources are not picking up the spelling change, and/or it doesn't have official proper name value. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 01:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Theater District vs. Theatre District: Let's try voting with sources

I'm seeing a lot of posts that add up to "I just like this spelling more than the other one." I realize that a lot of these matters on Wikipedia often come down to votes, but ideally, it wouldn't be about how many editors want one spelling or another. It would be about how many sources espouse one spelling or another and of the quality of those sources.

I think we can agree on the following (but please feel free to rip in if you feel the need):

1. The proper American spelling is "theater" and the proper British spelling is "theatre." Because the district is in New York, American spelling should be used unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise.

2. If "New York Theater/-re District" is a proper noun, then the official spelling should be used even if it doesn't match the regional spelling, at least in this case.

3. Whether individuals theaters within the Theater/-re district refer to themselves as "Theater" or "Theatre" has no bearing on whether the district itself is called "Theater District" or "Theatre District," just as the spelling of one individual theater does not have any bearing on the spelling of any other individual theater. Even if every establishment called itself "theatre," for us to say "Therefore, it is a theatre district" without an independent source would be WP:OR.

4. If the overwhelming majority of reputable sources refer to the district as either "Theatre District" or "Theater District," then we should treat the name as a proper noun.

5. However, if the reputable sources are split, even if there is a two-thirds majority one way or the other, then we should not treat the name as an established proper noun. In that case, we would use the standard American spelling "Theater District."

We could start with people adding the sources that they've used to support their arguments below. Please place them in the list with the most important sources on top (even if that means putting your New York Times source in between someone else's City of New York and HappyBlogger Forums, etc.). If the same source uses both spellings, then put it in both lists. If the source doesn't exactly say "Theatre District," then please provide its exact word in quotation marks. EDIT: Since the question is whether or not "Theater/-re District" is a proper noun (and not what the regional spelling may be), non-U.S. sources are relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. It was interesting -- if one looks at those publications that have the top circulation in the US, overwhelmingly that use the "-er" spelling.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Aside from the fact that the above lists are just one person's initial list and thus isn't entirely convincinging, several people have already disagreed with point #1 which is really nonsense; both -re and -er spellings are acceptable in American English (-er is more common) and Canadian (-re is more common), while -re is exclusively used in most other English varieties. In point of relevant fact, the -re spelling is frequently used in Am.E. to mean "live-action playhouse as opposed to moviehouse". Point 2 is true, but incomplete (see comment on point 4). Point 3 misses the point; it is "a theatre district", which is synonymous with "a theater district"; the issue before us is whether it is "the New York Theatre District" or "the New York Theater District", which may not be interchangeable (one may be a historic use, or simply barely attested in reliable American sources (which is what we care about, because this is actually an ENGVAR matter unless one spelling or the other is proven to be an official proper name). Point 4 would not be true if point 2 is true. Point 5 is just false; whether it's a proper name will be determined by the City of New York government, which appears to say the official proper name is in fact the Theater Subdistrict. Per WP:OFFICIALNAME, we do not have to use that as the article title if it is not the WP:COMMONNAME as well, which it is not. The common name in Am. Eng. seems from the links below to be "Theater District" not "Theatre District", and it is not a proper name either way, because we already have proof that the proper name is "Theater Subdistrict". And, for establishing proper name status and official name, city of NY cited as source trumps the NYT, even if NYT is more authoritative than CoNY on what is the more common name. This stuff is not rocket science, folks. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That's why I said "I think we can agree on the following, but feel free to rip in." Because I think we can agree on the following, but people should feel free to rip in.
For point #3, I mean that the statement "Every individual performance venue refers to itself as 'theatre.' Therefore the district full of theatres is the 'theatre district'" would be WP:OR.
For your response to point #1, can you provide a source? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Some thoughtful points, above, by SMcCandlish. The below lists are open to editing by all editors. A few have now edited it. Point 1) Tend to agree with SMcCandlish on main point--what is important is what is more common in American English (not proper vs. improper); which is "-er". 2) Agree w/both of you. 3) Agree that the issue is what we call the district. And that the names used by 40 buildings (owned by fewer owners) is not determinative, as weighed against millions of ghits, etc. 4) We follow the common usage. 5) We go by the common usage. The lists below show, interestingly, that even the 2-1 margin of "-er" common usage doesn't reflect how overwhelming the "-er" common usage is among major-circulation U.S. publications for this district. And how it is even more pronounced than the 2-1 margin; which is skewed by the "-re" spelling used by publications in England and her other former colonies. Bottom line -- agree that the common usage name in American English is "Theater District", not "Theatre District". Many diffs above and below to individual sources, ghits, ngrams, gbooks, and the like all amply reflect this.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think that non-U.S. sources are relevant here. The issue is whether "Theatre/-er District" is a proper noun. A spelling that remains constant across regional varieties of English would indicate that to be the case. For example, if this were a discussion about whether to move Labour Party to Labor Party or even just referring to it as such in AmE articles, the fact that U.S. sources refer to it as the "Labour Party" would be even stronger proof in favor of "Labour Party" than any source for which "labour" is the standard spelling. In the present case, it seems that most sources use whichever spelling matches the regional standard, but that tells us something valuable as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I just clicked into the Broadway League website (listed below under "Theatre") and I didn't see any mention of the word "district" at all. A search for "district" turned up zip. Of course, searches for both "theatre" and "theater" did the same, so I suspect the search function is kaput. Oknazevad, does this website refer to the NYC zone in question as the "Theatre District" or does it just refer to the "Theatre Industry," which I can see on its front page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems the search function is on the fritz. But check the "Press Releases" entry under the "Press Room" sidebar. Here's a bit of irony, though. The Broadway League (which is the industry organization for Broadway theatre producers, and co-presenter of the Tony Awards) has an affiliated website for buying tickets called "ilovenytheater.com" (the -re spelling is a redirect), yet on the bottom of every page it name's "Manhattan's Theatre District". oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources using "Theater District"

Sources using "Theatre District"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theater_District,_Manhattan/Archive_2&oldid=1137247159"