Talk:Performing arts in Detroit

Image(s) Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing changes

Perhaps the editor who keeps on making this change can explain why he is continuing to change what: a) was a perfectly good presentation; and b) was superior to the presentation he changed it to, as it is in a list of theaters from different cities. If he can't point to a policy supporting the change -- the one he first pointed to did not apply -- I would appreciate him not edit warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, because there is no good reason to link to redirects in see also sections. Just link to the actual article title. Policy isn't everything. There something called editorial judgement, and I am exercising mine. Especially since "Los Angeles Theater District" is a lousy redirect; LA has multiple theater districts (most notably Hollywood Blvd), so redirecting it to one, especially one that hasn't been LA's primary theater district in decades was a bad call. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"Second largest theater district"

The article states it, and cites a reasonably reliable source, but the claims seems a bit squirrelly to me and indeed a bit of nosing about turns up essentially identical, about equally well-sourced claims for Houston and Cleveland, here and here. Maybe by some one or another different measure these can all be true - total seats, total attendance, total number of theaters, total productions - but none of the sources explain what they're intending by the claims, and in light of the multiplicity of claims to the essentially identical station, I recommend removing the statement from this article (as well as any others, if they claim it there as well). Thoughts, please. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It's especially bad when the citation is to a website promoting an individual city. This problem has been discussed in the blogosphere.[1] For this article, I'll see if I can find an appropriate tag to ask for an non-biased source. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BD1D:24C5:291D:C444 (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I took it out. Lots of cities claim it, and I haven't seen any but one or two identify Detroit as an actual #2. JohnInDC (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Good. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:9DD3:379F:D263:E591 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)