Jump to content

Talk:Theater District, Manhattan/Archive 3

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

Requested move back to consensus spelling

The above move discussion failed to make the point that it has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". Those who write intensively about theatre, including New York theatre, should have been notified of the above discussion but were not. I have now notified the Theatre and Musical theatre WikiProjects of this discussion, and I hope that, even though we have gone over this again and again, editors will weigh in here and demonstrate the consensus again. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Much as I sympathize with your viewpoint, after two RM discussions in short succession, I think it's time to give this a rest, lest this turn into a case of beating a dead horse. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
After 6 years with the name Theatre District, New York, one editor moved the title and campaigned to make it stick without notifying anyone who actually writes about theatre in New York. That was not legitimate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ssilvers, I went to those projects to see what the results of the discussion were regarding the Broadway Theatre/Theater District name, but I could not locate any instance of the word "district" which makes me think there was no such discussion. The consensus of which you speak appears to be absent. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. The discussions were over how to spell "Theatre" on Wikipedia, and the consensus is reflected in titles like Broadway theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
two consistent discussions with the same conclusion is enough. This sort of thing has to end somewhere, because it distracts editors from writing. I've been in discussions and prevailed, I've been in discussions and not prevailed, but when I lose twice in a row, I don't try to start them over a third time the next day. It's not unreasonable to do an appeal, but one appeal is enough for finality. Otherwise it becomes a matter of Keep Fighting Forever. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A couple of things. Since Ssilvers didn't have the chance to "fight" for this as is the case for a number of editors, it is not unreasonable for them to wish another oppurtunity and while a third official move request would be annoying there simply is no policy against it. In fact we have a DR process and if any editor feels inclined they may use it. I would also note that immediatly after this close was made you went to Broadway theatre and began requesting a reopening of the discussion to move that title as weel and claimed it was the policy of MOS to stick to American variations that you claimed in that case were also the er spelling. It isn't. So, with all due respect...you are not exactly standing on firm ground with your "Keep fighting forever" comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the theatre projects that were excluded from the previous discussion, and I have also notified everyone who participated in the previous discussions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that we were notified. Seems very odd that only now do we get the chance. Sad that this wasn't promoted more to give those of us with an interest the ability to weigh in but there ya go. At any rate I have been through this debate and I believe the policy is that we use the spelling as it is given by the establishment and are then consistant through tha article with the spelling. According to Broadway.com its theatre: www.broadway.com/Theatre_Shows.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Ssilvers, much as I sympathize, it's up to members of projects to watchlist their own alerts. In this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Article alerts was running and featured the RM. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article alerts is also running but this page isn't tagged {WikiProject Musical Theatre} so it wouldn't have shown up. Sorry. Still seems like this was a latently non-consensus move, and the close summary "UCN with ENGVAR wins hands down!" (sorry Regents Park) was perhaps a cautionary tale about too much weight on WP:UCN. But as DGG says, some space is needed now. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems I was not even on the members list. Not sure why that is as I know I added my name a few years back. If we have to, we should just request a move review. I am not sure of the consneus to be honest.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You don't need to be on the members' list to watchlist the Alerts, just go there and click watchlist like any other article or template. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't make me feel less annoyed by this, but...well, there ya go.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe I had been on the page before. Odd that even though I added my name to the bottum it placed me at the # 12 spot. I don't know if that is from a prior involvement or from just years on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
And I my watchlisting on WP:Musical Theatre was not done. Dammit all to heck @#$@!!!!!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1. The unit of consistency on Wikipedia is not the Wikiproject; it is the article. It doesn't matter what WP:Theatre prefers.
2. The article "New York Theater District" isn't written for theater/-re professionals. It's written for general audiences. General English rules should apply. It doesn't matter what stage professionals prefer.
3. What you're really saying is that most Wikieditors who work on this subject just happen to like "theatre" more than "theater." Yes, things often come down to votes, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about what editors happen to prefer; it's about the sources, and the sources prefer "New York Theater District" more than 2:1.
If you want the official spelling to be "New York Theatre District," then write to the New York City Planning Department, theater websites and the arts sections of major newspapers and tell them why you think they should switch to the -re spelling. Wikipedia should reflect English as it is, not English as a few people wish it were. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a personal preference, even a preference for a given spelling. Get the sources behind you. Then not only can you change the spelling of the article, but you would be right to.
I would support reopening this discussion if it can be shown that either of the lists of sources given above is grossly incomplete. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Requesting re-opening the discussion

I believe there are a number of involved editors that were not given the chance to weigh in here.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree and hope that the admin will re-open the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, as soon as we are able I will be requesting this be moved back.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The fetishizing of the preferences and participation of members of one of the various wikiprojects claiming scope has to stop. While consensus can change, pushing for three WP:RM squabbles back-to-back as if to force consensus to cave in simply because your opponents are tired of being browbeaten or because one hopes that different people will happen to be participating the third time around, would be tendentious editing, gaming the system and asking the other parent. Just because there's a wikiproject and someone from a project claims they were left out does not mean that WP and its decision-making processes stop much less reverse themselves. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "silence = assent" (absent some special factor, like an attempt to hide the discussion from certain parties by holding it in a non-relevant forum populated only by their opponents).

Looking at this case in more detail, there are several salient factors that militate agains the idea that we're just accidentally at the "wrong version" or that the consensus arrived at twice to use the "Theater" spelling isn't real (which is what the needling "#Requested move back to consensus spelling" heading above suggests).

  1. Just because there's a wikiproject that claims scope does not mean that the preferences of people in that project represent the best option for Wikipedia and its readership (often the exact opposite is the case because of the specialist style fallacy, which I think may be at work here: Here, what theatre people choose to call the district is not necessarily relevant.
  2. If the official name according to the city or state of New York is spelled "Theater", that's the end of the story. This appears to in fact be the case.
  3. If there is no official name, or the official name (which is really "Theater Subdistrict" in this case) is not the exact title of the article, but a preponderance of general (i.e. not theatrical-specific) reliable sources that are US-published (ENGVAR does matter here; see below) use "Theater", that's the end of the story again. And this does appear to be the case here, too.
  4. I'm genuinely sympathetic to the fact (having raised it myself) that "theatre" is often used in American English to distinguish between live-action play/musical venues vs. movie houses, but that concern does not trump everything, especially not official names and the most common name used in relevant reliable sources.
  5. Just because some people from a relevant project are vocal does not mean that they represent the majority of, or a consensus of, editors in that project, anyway, and arguing from an "our wikiproject decided..." point of view if blatantly fallacious (logically and also as a matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy).
  6. How commercial and historical venues that happen to be in this neighborhood spell their own names is not relevant to the question of how to spell the name of the district, since it is not named for any one of these specific venues (the names of which can and in some cases have changed over time), but for the general, overall fact that it is full of theatrical venues and has been for generations.
  7. I also reiterate that Canadian, British, etc., sources are not relevant at all in this case, because a US-located socio-geographical place automatically has a "strong national tie" to US English, per WP:ENGVAR, so a large percentage of the pro-theatre sources have to be discarded anyway simply for being foreign, and they were already in the minority.
Regardless of the merits, it would be an abuse of process and of the good faith of the community to keep RM-warring this again and again. I would suggest an administrative moratorium of 1 year on any further move/rename proposals or debates with regard to this article, here or in any other forum.

PS: I should not have to spell this out, but I often have to: I am not citing WP:SSF as if it were a policy; it is an essay, and I wrote most of it. I cite the logic presented in it, against treating specialist (e.g. theatrical) sources as magically more reliable on style and grammar, not just specialist facts, than plain everyday journalism and other reliable sources. I present that logic because no one has successfully refuted it or even come close, and it applies across the board to all such "adopt the style used in this specialist kind of source despite the fact that virtually no one but specialists do so in the real world" arguments, regardless of underlying topic. I'm listing this debate at WT:SSF as a canonical example of the kind of argument the essay was written to forestall. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 05:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. No one, not even myself, has stated we intend to make this a back to back. I said "as soon as we are able", and your fetish remark was really just rude. And the accusations of tendentious editing, gaming the system and asking the other parent is just astounding and disruptive. No one is saying that the projects rule anything. I said we have an interest. Don't stretch things for you own advantage and lable others. That is beyond the pale to me. In fact, it has been established above that they were notified so read the freaking posts before you sound off about others. I admit I was not notified because I was not watchlisting the relevant pages but I also believe this discussion is not over and we do have the right to revisit this in the future with the proper amount of time and you can be assured it will happen. IF you want sanctions over this go to ANI and request it or start an arbcom review, but as yet no one has done what you have stated and you are guilty of making false accusations so reign it in buddy! To me that sounds like you intend to block further attempt to rename this in the future in almost anyway possible. Do whatever you feel is best, but I do not support this change and when the proper amiount of time has passed we may attempt to change consensus. You seem to want a limit to that using sanctions. That seems to be what is innaproproate here.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually [SMcCandlish's position regarding the City of New York] isn't accurate at all. It isn't the city that makes that call for our policies, its the establishments or theatres. So, if Broadway.com (the collective theatres) state the spelling as "re" that should have more weight and I don't even see that mentioned in the discussion. --Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC) [This comment was refactored back into this talk page from User_talk:SMcCandlish, since it's about the content of this debate, not user behavior. -SMcCandlish]
(edit conflict)Yes, at this point I am pretty much bashing in the head of a dead horse. I am also far too upset with the shit from above to take any further action on this. But the above is really pretty insulting and far beyond anything either myself or SSilvers has done.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist, it already is back-to-back if you don't drop it. I did not accuse anyone of anything. I said "pushing for three WP:RM squabbles back-to-back as if to force consensus to cave in ... would be" tendentious, etc. (emphasis added). I.e. "Do not keep pushing for three back-to-back RMs or it will be tendentious". I'm not labeling anyone. You're choosing to take hypotheticals and apply them manually to yourself as labels, which suggests that you feel that they hypotheticals do in fact apply to you despite your protestations. Who said I wanted sanctions for anyone? What on earth are you talking about? All I've suggested is a RM moratorium, to stop this protracted move-war. The fact that you "believe this discussion is not over and we do have the right to revisit this...and you can be assured it will happen" is precisely why there needs to be a moratorium, and why you may wish to re-examine your stance and how it's likely to be perceived, particularly with regard to WP:BATTLEGROUND. You also need to stop referring to a few people from a wikiproject as "we". The only "we" here is Wikipedians. Intend to block future renames? I don't care. I've given a logical and policy analysis of why the rename proposal you so staunchly support should not go forward for a third time. Next week or a year from now, those reasons will not have changed, and neither will the sources and other underlying facts. PS: There's nothing magically "bad" or insulting about the word "fetishism" (and derivatives like "fetisizing"); it means "the attribution of unusual or mystical significance to the inanimate or nonsentient" or in more philosophical terms "the emic attribution of inherent value or power to an object or other thing that does not have its own innate agency". Like the shared preferences of some group of editors that is in contrast to what the preponderance of evidence is telling us. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 06:52, 5 March 2013‎ (UTC)
Yes, you made some rather insulting accusations and "we" in reference to the projects is accurate. All projects are a collaboration of editors. That is "we". And yes, to call for a moretorium past any legitimate policy or guideline does require sanctions. It is never over on Wikipedia and I will be revisting this when the appropriate time is available. I am honest enough to state that outright. As I said, if you feel this needs to be intervened on there are appropriate places to do so. All I see from you are insults.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are so incensed. That's not the goal. Stopping a third round of fruitless bickering over this is. I hope I have addressing your concerns here now. Wikiprojects do not form a "we" that can legtimately be pitted against other groups of editors, which is what appears to be happening here. And you do not somehow represent the voices of an entire project; no one elected you, and it is unwise to act as if they did. Please be aware that "it is never over on Wikipedia, and I will be revisiting this" sounds again like a WP:BATTLEGROUND declaration. If all you see is accusations and insults when I've already explained how the hypotheticals do not even apply to you unless you willfully choose a disruptive path, that's not my issue, sorry. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: Re: City of New York vs. theatres in the area: It's an officially zoned subdistrict of New York. That's a municipal governmental matter. Random local businesses do not control city zoning and names of the zones, the city government does. Broadway.com? That's existed for a few years, and is owned by one particular company (Hollywood Media Corp.) not "the collective theatres". None of this arguing over nitpicks is relevant, anyway. There's a consensus. You don't like it or the process that arrived at it. You want to start a third WP:RM discussion back-to-back because the first two did not go your way. Others are not inclined to go there, because it would be tedious and disruptive. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't overinterpret that "official" name found on the NYC.gov website. The "Theater subdistrict" is a zoning district, not an official designation known very far outside city hall. It probably was named by a recent Cornell urban planning graduate who knew nothing of the neighborhood and had to record something on paper. As an indication of how unmeaningful these can be, my city (nowhere near Manhattan) has a zoning district officially named "Manhattan District Overlay", which name followed a certain logic understood by the staff, but is unrelated to any actual local names for the area. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This. The local pro-Brit consensus at wp:theatre has no relevance concerning an American district that has had this more common spelling for decades now and an official designation from the city gov't of New York. Actually read through the links and discussion above. Ignoring the pageownership and it's-always-been-spelled-this-way handwaving, what few sources the 'theatre' crowd provided tended to support the spelling 'theater' as well: on a scan of what's been added since I left, that seems to have been the principal reason the discussion was closed. — LlywelynII 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It can be said that there is a 50/50 approach to this in the US. I don't know what page ownership you may be refering to as, at least I, have not made any claims of anything having to happen and I have never even editied the page, but I think you have made a good point about many of the sources supporting both. Heck, even Broadway.com uses both spellings in the same paragraph. How confusing is that! LOL! Thanks for the calm logical approach!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI – Asked by SSilvers to review his above close, sysop Mike Cline wrote yesterday:

    "I am going to stand by my close as there was no concensus in the current discussion to change the title back to the previous title. Several points to make 1) Notifying projects of RMs is not a requirement, and although I think it is a good idea, the community has repeatedly rejected it as a requirement of the RM process. 2). If you were unhappy with the previous close, then a WP:Move Review would have been an appropriate option instead of openning another RM. 3) I would heed DGGs comments in the discussion following the close."[1]

Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move/rename moratorium

I propose that a 1 year moratorium be agreed to with regard to this article (and regardless where one might raise a discussion about it), and administratively enforced. Three back-to-back RM actions (or demand for them) is ridiculous and cannot serve any constructive purpose. Consensus does not change just because arguments are re-re-re-introduced. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator of course. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's good you put your vote at the top of the list instead of the middle like BMK above, but again there's really no need for the nominator to vote at all. Also, I don't see how creating a time-bomb improves anything. Just let the Anglophiles and older New Yorkers (it was the more common spelling in the 50s) get it out of their system and leave it at that.

    Obviously, your suggestion is better than reopening it now, but let them reopen it when they actually have better evidence from NYC or Ngram. Maybe someone will start a letter-writing campaign of old New Yorkers to force them to 'fix' their subdistrict's name. When that happens, the page should move, regardless of if it's six months or six years from now. Likewise, if that doesn't happen, the page shouldn't be moved in one year or ten. — LlywelynII 07:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose of course, but this seems to be taking ownership of the article and overriding the general community. If we wish, we may indeed reopen the discussion and request the move in the future. I agree with LlywelynII that an attempt to move right now is not appropriate, but if it is re-opened to continue the discussion I would very much support that.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The move to Theater District was actually against policy, specifically, WP:RETAIN, which says that where there's two options, you use whereever the article was placed first. It seems ridiculous to now turn around and attempt to perpetuate a bad admin action. It should be switched back immediately. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I hate to bring this up, but the question of the spelling of theater as opposed to theatre goes far beyond this one article on the New York City "Theater/re" Subdistrict, or whatever is an appropriate name. It appears that at least a sizeable bulk of Wikipedia's articles pertaining to theater/theatre use the "re" spelling. Does this now mean we will have this same discussion for each of these individually? This situation was a large part of the reason I felt the original move should never have been made to start with. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The move is against the policies expressed in WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS and the article's title should be switched back to the original immediately. Jack1956 (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is just the problem. I have an unhappy suspicion that this page may have been merely an opening shot across the bow. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No, those are project guidelines not policy or guidelines of the MOS or Wikipedia. If this went to DR/N it would not even be allowed to be argued using the projects style guides..--Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
AMS, I hope you don't mind my reformatting these two posts, so they follow in more logical sequence, since mine was a response to Jack1956, and left yours, above, appearing to be unsigned. If I understand your point, above, you are saying that that the project's guidelines would be shot down? Milkunderwood (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. It was a appropriate as far as I am concerned and I added the time stamp and signature. If this were to advance to the Dispute Resolution Noticboard, all arguments would have to be based on actual policy and guidelines not the local consensus of the projects. It would be brought up in advance for this issue as it is relevant. Same thing occured recently with the dispute over the rifle company from the Newton School Shooting. It should be mentioned however that many project guidelines are based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia so that is always possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I am glad you did bring it up. The consensus here would not apply to other pages as this is a result of what appears to be sources for this particular location. It may change but for now this stands here, but does not mean we chase after all the other spellings on other pages...again (it has happened before and perhaps you remember or have noticed it as well in the past). For individual organizations we use the spelling the company or group uses and then we remain consitant within that article. I hope this doesn't become an issue. I do share your concerns. We do have to still consider the locations that do use the re as well as er spelling in their actual names.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: OK, let's see if I have this straight. Move a page that has been spelled theatre, like Broadway theatre, for six years. Don't tell anyone at WP:THEATRE or WP:MUSICALS who, y'know, edit theatre articles. Even though all these people who actually edit theatre articles here on Wikipedia (check their histories, and you'll see that they do) never were informed about this move request, now you say that they can't object to this move for a whole year because you've already discussed the issue here at this page recently. That seems, how shall I put this: illegitimate? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would have been nice but not required for the projects to have been informed. At least the alert went to one of them. I made Eggs Benedict and have some food in me now. I am still concerned but less aggrivated. Sleep may even give me a little better idea as how to move forward. I will say that the move review is still an option and we can always use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I would recuse myself as a volunteer to participate there if need be.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is about a district of a city and not the name of a theatre or theatres and is therefore beyond the scope of WP:THEATRE or WP:MUSICALS. That these projects were not notified is no less surprising than if WP:TURTLES was not notified over the name of Turtle Bay or if WP:RELIGION was notified about the correct name for Hell's Kitchen. —  AjaxSmack  01:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Request - seeing as I only came here because I saw Epeefleche's invitation to Talk WP:COMMONNAME, it is now seeming a little odd that I got invited but WP:Theatre and WP:Musicals didn't. @SMcandlish is right "Three back-to-back RM actions (or demand for them)" may not achieve anything, but since I'm assuming that NOW - with or without a third RM, everyone and his cat have been notified could Epeefleche and BeyondmyKen both kindly do !vote counts (yes treating WP editors as numbers) and tell us what they as 1st-nom and counter-nom believe a full !votecount now would be. This is an academic exercise as it relates to this article, but not an academic exercise in terms of understanding the relation of WP:RM notifications to outcomes in general. I'm assuming both Epeefleche and BeyondmyKen will be willing to do a count, if not then ignore this. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It's my general impression, possibly mistaken, that the WP:UCN watchers have had several days to find this discussion, whereas the various Theatre-related projects are just now starting to find it. Aside from counting !votes being disallowed, I would hate to think there might be an element of disingenuousness in this suggestion. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this this entirely by accident, looking for a specific play run. At this point, the obvious next step is in fact to propose a move to Broadway theater. What I want to know is, will that be allowed, or also covered by this suggested moratorium? Milkunderwood (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No. Per: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling the American spelling variant prefered is theater for buildings and theatre for performances (The exception is always with proper names, as many American theatre companies spell it with re and a few buildings are titled as well with re, so we always use what the proper name it).--Amadscientist (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I wish I could share your confidence. In my experience, once you get the UCN fanatics riled up, there's no telling what might happen. Some editors seem to wave UCN as a bloody flag, thinking that it automatically trumps all other considerations. Pretty much the same for ENGVAR. But I'm a pessimist. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it important to note that in a quick review of guidelines it appears that this move may have been properly done per MOS spelling, as a district is, in fact, referring to the structures. At the moment I would advise letting this move stand but still do not support a moratorium. Kinda reminds me of the Ancient Roman moratorium against permanet theaters for some reason. (Joke of course but true)--Amadscientist (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose moratorium, but support "Theater (Sub)district" per official NYC.gov naming. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose moratorium, although I also think the proponents of "Theatre" should give this a rest for now. Oppose reliance on "official NYC.gov naming". The "Theater subdistrict" is a zoning district, probably named by a recent Cornell urban planning graduate who knew nothing of the neighborhood. My city has a zoning district officially named "Manhattan District Overlay", which followed a certain logic understood by the staff, but is unrelated to any actual local names for the included area. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Mild Support. A year seems a bit long to me. But really this is completely unconstructive. Nobody has anything new to say about this. How many times do people need to explain ENGVAR and the difference between "official" and "common" usage – although here the two actually seem to be the same – and be ignored before we can come to the conclusion that further discussion is fruitless? Plus, when SMC wrote an extensive and well-thought-out (if perhaps a bit gruff) response to those opposed to the current name, everyone seemed to focus on the contributor and not the content, which is exactly backwards and just illustrates the futility of further discussion. I think this should be nipped in the bud so that everyone can go back to whatever it is they were doing before this tempest in a teapot arose. AgnosticAphid talk 15:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wider participation is required for lasting consensus and I only just got here. I noticed this spelling issue when working upon the Orpheum Circuit and endorse the finding that the -re spelling is common in the US. Warden (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not wanting to get drawn back into a pointless discussion over something so trivial, if this content is in so much dispute then the content should be put back (whatever it may be) to it's original content before the conflict began. As per policy, which forgive, I cannot find at the moment being on my phone. MisterShiney ✉ 20:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It really is important to give everyone with a view, not least those who regularly contribute on this and allied subjects, the chance to have his or her opinions considered. Tim riley (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support re-opening the discussion if opponents of the decision can show that there is evidence that was not considered. For example, if there are many reliable sources that use the "Theatre District" spelling that didn't make it onto our list of sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Darkfrog, the list of sources basically shows that general-interest newspapers in the U.S. prefer "theatre", while publications *everywhere* that focus on theatre, such as Playbill, prefer theatre, and publications outside of the US use "theatre". I don't think anyone disputes that. As I pointed out above, US theatres themselves are usually named "theatre" (see, e.g., the list of Broadway theatres). because theatre professionals and the theatre industry, here in the U.S., prefer the -re spelling. When this discussion about the Theatre district in NY was conducted, the people on Wikipedia who write about theatre were unaware of this discussion. Throughout this encyclopedia, those of us who write about theatre have brought consistency of style and professionalism to this publication by agreeing that, since the -re spelling is *correct* everywhere in the world, but the -er spelling is *wrong* in most of the world, even though the -er spelling is preferred by US newspapers, we should consistently use the -re spelling. Why is it not clear that a discussion about how to spell the name of this article should have included an invitation to the regular writers in this area on this publication. That would be like the NY Times excluding from a meeting to consider how to staff their book review all of their reporters and editors who work on book reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The NYTimes also usually, or at least frequently, dispenses with diacritics in names - but that's a different can of worms here. The point is that newspapers, including NYT, have their own style guides which they more-or-less follow. The New Yorker (not listed above) consistently uses "theatre"; but they also consistently use other style-guide spellings. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Ssilvers, I understand your position about the usage of the word "theatre" when talking about theatres and I agree in the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY. However, at issue here is the name of a city district and not an article about a theatre or theatres. In this case, the common English name of the district should prevail. —  AjaxSmack  01:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Ssilvers, general-interest publications are better sources than specialist publications when it comes to matters of style and presentation. (This matter comes up a lot with the capitalization of species names.) This is because they, like Wikipedia, are written for general audiences. And I'm assuming that you meant to say "general-interest newspapers in the U.S. prefer 'theater.'" Sure, Playbill should be considered superior when it comes to the facts of the performances, but why would it be any better at spelling than the New York Times or City Planning?
Write for your audience is the paramount rule, and our audience is the general English-reading public, not theater/-re professionals.
You might have something going with the WP:Commonality argument, but the "theater" spelling is so much more prevalent in U.S. English than "theatre" that I would say that the WP:ENGVAR argument outweighs it. That's me, though.
The unit of consistency on Wikipedia is the article, not the Wikiproject. No one needed your or anyone's permission. If I'd been the one opening this discussion, I probably would have posted an announcement on the WP main, but failing to do so does not exclude you or anyone from this discussion; no one prevented you from participating.
Even assuming that every single theatre in the theater district used the -re spelling saying 1. every institution in the district calls itself a "theatre" 2. therefore it is a "theatre district" is WP:OR. You need a secondary source to say "therefore it's a theatre district," and the secondary sources are split 2:1 against calling it that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well then, just to play devil's advocate here...why are we calling it a "district" if the sources don't? Hmmmm? Perhaps we need an RFC to take on that part now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
They do call it a district. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Not from what editors are saying that took part in the discussion. Hey. we can argue this all day, but the fact is "theater" is what the MOS states is for structures and "theatre" for performances. As far as I am concerned at this point the only question is the reference to district. If its in all of the sources being used" fine.....if not, then we ave a legitimate concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
If you scroll up, you will see two giant lists of sources that all refer to it as a district. They call it "theater district" or "theatre district," depending.
WP:MoS, however, makes no mention of either "theater" or "theatre." The list of arts style guides doesn't seem to include any MoS specific to WP:Theatre. Which MoS are you talking about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not going to read those sources. Sorry, and I won't make you read MOS spelling that does indeed mention the American variations that support the use of theater for structures. But you might want to review them before you make a claim that MOS doesn't" mention it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to read them: They are compiled into handy lists for your convenience. But if you don't read them, then it's probably not wise for you to make claims about what they do and don't say.
I actually did check the MoS before typing that reply. WP:MoS does not contain either the word "theatre" or the word "theater." It seems you were talking about MOS:Spelling, which does indeed mention the distinction you've drawn. What it doesn't do is provide any sources for that claim. In fact, its sources, as well as the three different U.S.-relevant dictionaries that I just checked, make no mention of it. I have corrected MoS: Spelling accordingly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted that. Please do not edit war to make a point.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
1. That's not what edit warring is. 2. The information in question violated WP:V (and contradicted four reliable sources, three of which I mentioned in my edit summary and all of which can be found on the MOS:SPELLING talk page). If you want that or anything included in MOS:SPELLING, find a source for it and then put it back. That's standard Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Congressional bill

The actual bill spells it -re, so, notwithstanding the misspelling in the congressional summary (were you guys congressional aides in 1982?), please do not mis-spell the bill's name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Save the Theatres

This organization was definitely spelled "theatre", as shown in court papers. This is just another example of why we should not follow the newspapers' misspelling of "theatre". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Now that complete waste of energy has apparently dissipated, I'd like to propose that the article be moved to Theater Subdistrict, New York (or maybe Theatre Subdistrict, New York). There's life in the old nag yet... 124.148.87.108 (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Theatre vs. Theater

How can we call this the "Theater District" when every single theatre in the whole neighborhood spells it "Theatre?" Cinerama Comment (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Welcome to wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your experience here. I'm glad you found your way to the talk page. If you read the discussions above your post, you will find your answer.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, welcome to Wikipedia. This is what happens here: Of course it should be called the Theatre District, but Epeefleche is so persistent that he/she has repeatedly succeeded in gathering a majority of editors to suppress the correct name, as you will see in the voluminous discussions above. Persistence wins here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Ummm .. welcome to Wikipedia. Where consensus rules. And we have guidelines. Such as the one cited above. And, at times, the consensus applies the guidelines. And, at times, editors such as Ssilvers: a) accuse me of not "gathering" editors by posting about this conversation elsewhere ("editors ... should have been notified of the above discussion"), and then ... precisely the opposite ... b) accuse me of "gathering" editors. No editors were gathered here by me -- though some editors were "gathered" here by others. But then again -- welcome to wikipedia, where baseless assertions about what editors have done are sometimes seen. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there was a big discussion about this a few months back (and no that does not mean that you're not allowed to raise the issue). Most of these cantankerous debates do boil down to a vote, but that time we voted with sources. It turned out that reliable sources such as newspapers and theater websites preferred the American -ter spelling by more that two to one when referring to the district itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

I recently evaluated this article as a part of the class assignment. I found that it could be improved in the following ways: The real problem with the article is that it is so out of date. Although it provides a link to the New York City visitor guide, the article itself says nothing about the current state of the theater district. There is a link to the Times Square revival, but it too is very outdated. The article does not say much about musical theater and that is a great draw to the area. Someone who was looking for information on this topic would be disappointed. Sbenson13 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is not to be a visitor's guide to what is happening right now in the Theatre District, but to give some background on the district, its history, its geography, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Revision Made- What I was trying to do.

For this article, I thought it would be helpful if I added a section on how Disney made a significant impact on the theater district, Manhattan. In doing so, I have been told I am in the wrong and have gone against Wikipedia standers. I would ask, however, that instead of just removing my section (that I worked very hard on) to instead help revise it and help make it fit the Wikipedia standards. I believe that this is a section that should be added because, with the contribution from Dinsey, the theater district in Manhattan would not be where it is today. Sbenson13 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed the section. Because Disney's coming did indeed have a significant effect on the Theater District, my intention was, as you say, to revise it and place it in a better position in the article, not in it's own secrion, but when I went to do that, I simply found too much wrong with the section. As I said in my edit summary, it was full of information having nothing to do with Disney, as well as misinformation, mischaracterization, and opinion (i.e. WP:Original research).
I suggest that you start from scratch with the most basic facts that you can support with citations from reliable sources. Remember that we're all volunteers here, no one is paid to edit Wikipedia, and it's really not fair to ask others to do the work that you should do yourself. After you have a new version, I suggest you post it here, and then other editors can chime in to assist you, but, really, you should do the groundwork first, especially considering this is a student assignment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi! Sbenson13, I was asked to look in on this. Offhand I think that Beyond My Ken is referring to the following things:
  1. At points in the section you used words or phrases like "of course" and "smash". The problem with wording like "of course" is that it comes across as a persuasive essay as it's directing the reader to interpret the section in a specific way and also makes assumptions of the reader - namely that they would already know what you're stating and/or agree with what you've written in specific. Words like "smash" are ones that are frequently used in promotional marketing material and as such, are seen as inherently non-neutral. An alternative to this would be to use wording such as "The show ... was successful...". Also be careful of writing non-neutrally in general, as the sentence "Although it had government support, Disney and other corporations such as Viacom and AMC did what the government alone could not do" came across as an opinion as well. It's not that the sentence is wrong per se - it just needs to be more carefully written.
  2. Some of the claims aren't backed up by the source material. All claims need to be backed up with sourcing that explicitly states the material in the article. For example, the claim of The Lion King musical featuring "gigantic Indonesian-inspired puppets and authentic African music" wasn't in the Los Angeles Times source - it actually didn't even mention The Lion King at all and was written in 1994, three years before the musical was first performed. Claims without sourcing can be considered original research.
  3. While Disney had an undeniably huge impact on the Theater District, the way this was written seemed to suggest that the entire idea to revitalize the Theater District was because of Disney. This wasn't the case, as there were plans to clean up the area for years - it just couldn't keep its momentum. You did mention this, but further down in the article, giving it far less weight. There's also that the Shubert Organization's actions weren't impacted by Disney and placing it in a section like this gives off the impression that it was.
I think that BMK's idea of making this a more general overview of the revitalization and not putting all of the emphasis on Disney is a good one. The history of the area's revitalization - especially when considering the failed attempt(s) to succeed prior to Disney coming in - is definitely fascinating, so I wouldn't put all of the emphasis on Disney. It would also be good to find more sourcing in general so that all of the major claims are sourced. All of the sourcing you had was good, but they don't back up the claims - which is very important, as you need to make sure that everything is as accurate as possible. We can't draw conclusions based on existing material - we can only include what has been specifically stated in existing sourcing. So essentially I suggest refocusing the section into a general section about the revitalization attempts and going over their overall history as opposed to the emphasis on Disney. This will need some re-working of content and new sourcing to help back up the claims. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good one, although I would disagree in categorizing the efforts prior to Disney as being "failed". As someone who had to, at times, walk the block of 42nd Street from Theatre Row to the subway when the area was at its nadir, I can attest that the area was significantly better after the efforts of the city's re-zoning and those of The New 42nd Street than it was before. That being said, Disney's mounting of The Lion King was a boost to the area, but even more so their later decision to buy the New Amsterdam and renovate it, which was a signal that they planned to stay involved on the Broadway scene. This encouraged an influx of money for other new productions, especially when Disney continued to mount new shows and make money on them. Old timers such as myself may carp that the kinds of shows Disney and other producers mounted -- family-oriented musicals based on animated films or comic book characters -- altered Broadway in a negative fashion, but there is absolutely no denying that the combined effect of the city's efforts, those of The New 42nd Street, and the advent of Disney resurrected the Theatre District -- and especially Times Square -- so that it was vastly different from what it had been not too many years before. (In fact, when I worked on a Broadway show after the revitalization, my complaint was not about dark and abandoned streets, it was that there were too damned many people there, which made it difficult to get around.)
    All of this was widely publicly discussed in many media outlets -- The New York Times archives would be an excellent place to start -- so it should not be hard to source a straightforward history of the district pre- and post-Disney. If Sbenson just wishes to concentrate on the specific effect that Disney had, I'm certain there are many reliable sources out there to help craft such a section. But whether the focus is tight, on Disney, or broader, on the whole revitalization campaign, it simply needs to be encyclopedic, neutrally written, and well-sourced. That's what I found missing in the section I removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with BMK's and Shalor's assessment of Sam's (Sbenson13) edits – helpful, constructive criticism. I suggest that Sam continue to work on the draft at User:Sbenson13/sandbox/articledraft and notify other editors here on this page when that draft is sufficiently developed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Interactive map

@Oknazevad: I restored the map in the infobox because it is an interactive map showing the general location. We do not need to zoom in since it is showing the neighborhood's location in New York City, and because the user can zoom in the interactive map. Also, I don't think the map necessarily needs to show the boundaries, as they are described in the article, but I can add them if you want. epicgenius (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd add them, if only because the term "theater district" doesn't appear on the map, so giving the exact boundaries does help avoid confusion who might think the map is in error. oknazevad (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. I will add them later. epicgenius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theater_District,_Manhattan/Archive_3&oldid=1137247172"