Talk:Broadway theatre/Archive 1

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

2003 Orchestra Strike

I corrected the reason for the 2003 orchestra strike. The previous version stated that the strike was to protest producers' plans to replace them with a virtual orchestra. Actually, the reason for the strike because producers wanted to reduce the minimum number of musicians required during contract negotiations. The musicians threatened to strike if the contract expired. That's when the producers threatened to use virtual orchestras.

"Musicians who work in the orchestra pits... might walk off the job after their union contract expires on Sunday. Negotiations between the musicians' union and producers have hit a snag over a clause in the contract that requires a minimum number of orchestra members to be hired for each Broadway theater... Broadway musicals this week are rehearsing with prerecorded music to prepare for a potential strike." - http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/02/25/leisure.broadway.reut/

--Uw badgers 04:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Poor Soldier

There is erroneous info in this article. The first musical ever performed on Broadway was John O'Keefe and William Shield's musical comedy 'The Poor Soldier'. It play Broadway in 1785. This is strongly supported by a bulk of records from theatre scholars, particularly as it was a favourite of George Washington's (he had an adaptation of it played at his inauguration celebrations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.125.65 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Controversy

Moved from theatre (Brit spelling) to theater (American spelling). Thx. jengod 18:48, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the correct spelling is "Broadway theatre." Please check http://www.americantheatrewing.org/, http://www.broadway.org/, http://www.broadwayarchive.com/, and http://webcdi.com/theater/theatre.php. While most Americans spell "theater" with an "er" (as per American spelling conventions), in the field of theatre as a profession, the majority of theatres use the spelling "theatre." This can be seen from the magazine "American Theatre" published by the Theatre Communications Group and the American Theatre Wing which sponsors the Tony Awards. "Broadway theater" should be included as a cross-reference, but the correct spelling of the entry is "Broadway theatre."

DJKS 01:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So then why isn't it spelled THEATRE throuout the article? --Samuel Wantman 06:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good question. In some cases, I left the spelling "Theater" because that is how it is spelled in the theatre's name (Winter Garden Theater, Lincon Center Theater.)

The main Wiki page for theatre is spelled "theater," so linking to theater, I left it how that page is spelled. In other cases, I left the word spelled theater when it refered more to a building, and opted for theatre in other cases. Any comments or suggestions are welcome!

DJKS 18:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that "theatre" is the "correct" spelling. There are two widespread spellings in use, theatre and theater. It may be the case that the trade organizations prefer theatre, but that merely dictates official usage, not actual usage. The general public uses both. I have no objection to the current location, as usage is mixed, but merely to claiming it is the only "correct" location. --Delirium 06:36, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with User:Delirium -- regardless of how Britain spells "theater" and whether that's "correct," Broadway is located in America, where "theatre" is spelled with "-er" and therefore should go by American spelling standards.

The naming convention is actually a little trickier than that. In America, the word "theatre" refers to the art form and the idea, while the term "theater" refers to an actual building. Because this article is not about an actual building, but rather, about the art form as it relates to broadway, the name theatre is correct. --omtay38 01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess again! The spelling variation is the U.S. is even more complicated than that! The trend over the last few years has been for the theatre spelling to be shifted towards proper names (to match the American use of centre, which is now almost entirely found as "Centre"). The trend has by no means yet pushed the spelling all the way towards the "Centre" usage, but it's getting there. Since this article is not about a particular theater known as "The Broadway Theatre", the spelling really should be "Broadway theater". --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-21 14:36 (UTC)
The professional way to pronouncer is theatre, if you are in the buisness. 71.110.39.141 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Broadway Database

I just wanted to make my fellow Wikipedians aware of a wonderful new web-site on the theatre, the Internet Broadway Database. There have been full page ads in "The New York Times" in recent days touting it and I finally tried it today in writing an article; very useful site--like the Internet Movie Database, but appears more professionally done. It's here. PedanticallySpeaking 14:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Cats Inconsistancy?

I was reading the pages Broadway_theatre and Cats_(musical) and found what appears to be an inconsistancy between the two pages. In the text of Broadway_theatre, I saw:

"The longest running show in Broadway history was Andrew Lloyd Webber's Cats, which closed in 2000 after running for 7,485 performances at the Winter Garden Theater."

But in Cats_(musical), I saw:

"It was on the stage in the New London Theatre for exactly 21 years and 8,949 performances, from 11 May 1981 to 11 May 2002, the longest running musical in British musical history."

The two statements disagree about number of performances and closing date. Since I know nothing about theatre, I have no idea which statement is correct or whether I'm just misunderstanding something (in which case the pages need clarifaction). Can anyone resolve the confusion?

IntMan 15:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Broadway article is referring to the show's run on Broadway whereas the Cats article is referring to its run in London. Lisiate 04:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Chatty

I'm a little surprised to find that the talk page here is about the things it's about, when the body of the article is quite breezy and chatty, and unsourced. Perhaps that could be tuned up? (I don't have the background, mostly, to do it myself, although perhaps that would make me a better candidate for the work...) --Baylink 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No references

In addition, the development of Broadway theatre owes a great deal to the theatrical traditions and contributions of four immigrant or minority groups: Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans and African-Americans.

How is the above sentence verifible? There is absolutely no reference. I believe this should be removed. American theatre draws from many backgrounds and traditions. That sentence cannot stay in the article without proper documentation or supporting facts. - --Tribeca 728 05:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Venue names

Hi, I have edited a few of the pages and links for some of the Broadway theatres. Not all of them--such as the Belasco, the Broadhurst, and the Cort--bear the first names of their namesakes. I've fixed these up according to reliable sources such as Playbill and books like William Morrisons' Broadway Theatres. Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 09:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

500 seat regulation?

Can someone confirm this? I've personally heard 499—but this statistic should be reputable. Can anyone find the actual requirement from the true source? mxdxcxnx T C 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A New York theatre is a "Broadway theatre" if it's owners are members of The League of American Theatres and Producers, and the League has determined that theatre to be a Broadway Theatre. The 499 seats is a reference to one of the factors that determine which contract actors will work under. For instance, 99 seats is the usual maximum for an Equity waiver show. Swango 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that is totally correct. The League is basically a trade organization that has two primary functions: to promote Broadway theatre, and to negotiate contracts with the theatrical unions (Actors' Equity, the various IATSE locals, and the musicians). Contract language with these unions defines what is and isn't a Broadway theatre. I don't have the Equity Production (i.e. "Broadway") Contract in front of me, but my recollection is that it defines a Broadway theatre as one which is in a certain area of Manhattan (i.e. the Theatre District) and which has over 499 seats. Over the years, that definition of what a Broadway theatre is (however it first came about) has been integrated into all kinds of agreements and contracts, and it's pretty solid at this point.
There is another factor as well: the definition of what theatres are eligible for Tony Awards, which is set by the American Theatre Wing and the League, which co-administer the awards. By this definition, the theatres of the three non-profit companies (MTC, Roundabout and Lincoln Center) are Tony-eligible, and therefore considered by most people to be Broadway houses, even though the actors work under a negotiated rider to the LORT contract, which is generally used in regional theatres, and not the Production Contract. (Disney, too, has a seperately negotiated contract, as did LiveEnt before it went belly up.)
Fortunately, the Venn diagram of these various definitions pretty much overlaps perfectly, and there isn't all that much confusion about which houses are Broadway houses and which are not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are those "many" and why do we give a damn about them?

Please cite references in this article when adding stuff like: "although many deride both Broadway and West End product as excessively commercial." --Kunzite 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin of term "Legitimate Theater"

This article contends that "legitimate" refers to theater in opposition to film or TV. This doesn't make much sense when you consider the term "legitmate THEATER" which seems to suggest an opposition to other forms of theater, not another medium entirely. Specifically, I have heard this term to be used to describe plays in opposition to musicals or revues, or else refer to narrative performance in opposition to performance art, burlesque, or stripping. The citation associated with this comment, at Variety's Slanguage" defines the term thusly:

"legit -- legitimate (live) theater. The term seeks to differentiate serious theater (think Shakespeare, think O'Neill) from vaudeville or burlesque"

Clearly, this contradicts what is written in the article. I suggest removing the reference entirely or else changing it to reflect its actual meaning.

The derivation was incorrect, and I've changed it. "Legtimate" was meant in opposition to vaudeville and burlesque. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should include the general time that Broadway theatre is offered

In the 1920s, the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation rerouted its Brighton Beach Line services during theatre hours, then 7:30 pm to midnight. (Image:1924schedule2.jpg shows this at the bottom of the left side.) Is this still when most theatres are open? --NE2 07:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more variation on playing schedules than there used to be, but generally speaking a Broadway schedule is Tuesday through Saturday at 8, Wednesday and Saturday matinee at 2, and Sunday matinee at 3. An alternative that many shows also use is to have a Monday night performance instead of a Sunday matinee. Some shows have started doing an earlier performance on Tuesday (7:00), and shows much more frequently than they used to will juggle their schedule according to the season. Thursday matinees (at 2) are now used more than they used to be 20 or so years ago, and sometimes a show will add that matinee and lose a mid-week evening performance. Producers are a lot more aware now of who their target audience is, when they are more likely to come to a show, and what days are the dead ones, and they adjust their show schedules accordingly. Several factors limit their flexibility: they have to pay everyone more for doing more than 8 performances in a week, and Equity limits actors to doing 5 performances over the course of three days, unless a penalty is paid. (The other unions may have contract language that places limitations on the schedule as well.) Also, shows generally try to come down after 3 hours, since the stagehands get additional if it goes over that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

I tried to cut down the external links to those directly relevant to this article, and especially ones without a commercial incentive for existing. The unions all have articles where the external link is appropriate. I provided an edit summary, yet I was reverted without any explanation. Why did this happen? kmccoy (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The unions are an intimate part of the Broadway community -- as the current strike shows -- and their websites clearly should be included. The commercial sites, which would ordinarily not be included, happen to be a good source of Broadway news and information (remember, Broadway is, by its very nature, a bunch of commercial enterprises). I eliminated the multiple League-sponsored sites, leaving those which have good information value, and re-organized the sites into coherent groupings. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the unions' importance in the Broadway community. However, they have their own articles. The appropriate thing to do is to link to their Wikipedia articles, and keep the external links in the union articles. WP:EL suggests the following in its list of links to be avoided: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." The commercial sites really skirt the edge of acceptability, the value of their "news" is questionable and I don't see what they add to the article other than to build up a link directory. kmccoy (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

History?

No section on history? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section could certainly use a brief history section, but I'm not the one to start it. I have no reference books and my local library has very little in the way of "arts" materials (and I don't have the time to do any kind of internet research). This site musicals.101 has some historical material (NOTE THE COPYRIGHT), as does this talkingbroadway. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How's that?  :) Someone, please add some info about non-musical plays, as my knowledge is mostly about musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks! JeanColumbia (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recoup

The recently-added list of shows that have recouped cries out for verifiable, reliable sources, in my opinion. (WP:RELY) (I'd do it but I have no idea where to begin, especially with a list that contains 25 shows.)

Any thoughts/ideas? JeanColumbia (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One answer to my question--a quick search of the "New York Times" gives this article about Spelling Bee and Avenue Q recouping. (NY Times, Sept. 12, 2005).
Additionally, a search of playbill.com (using the term "recoup") gives many articles, for example here.
So, I suppose there could be perhaps 25 or so separate references, but that seems like overkill. JeanColumbia (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it make sense to have this list? How can we be sure that these are the only "recent" shows that recouped the investment? Why recent shows? Some shows that didn't recoup their investments ran for a long time and employed a lot of people... Also, some shows lost money but were a critical success and helped thier authors or composers become famous.... Is recoupment a key topic in an article on "Broadway theatre"? I'm no expert, but it seems like we ought to rethink what should be contained in this article. How about top grossers? Longest runners? Most awards won? Greatest artistic successes? Trends for Broadway? Types of shows that play on Broadway? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the entire list out. (It's below this comment.) I've worked in theatre in NYC as a stage manager for 30 years, even done a few shows on Broadway, and this list seems extremely suspicious to me -- there are way too many shows listed as recouping their initial investment. Show can run for very long times without recouping, but making enough to justify their continuing to run.

Until someone comes up with a verifiable citation for this data, it should remain out of the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, it is surprisingly infrequent that a Broadway show recoups, or makes back it's entire investment. Recent shows that have recouped their entire initial investment are:

Also, it may be a prejudice on my part, but this data was posted by an IP address from NYU, which makes it somewhat suspicious in my mind. Even if their intent was legit, though, because of the anonymity we can't inquire about sources. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ playbill article
  2. ^ playbill article

Definition of a Broadway Theater?

I removed the recent addition of the Newhouse Theatre to the list of Broadway theatres. I think it is not a Broadway theatre as defined in the article; also here are a few references:[[1]]; [[2]].JeanColumbia (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone find what really defines a Broadway Theater? The definitions on this page do not fit the official lists of the actual broadway theaters, but I also can't determine what the qualifying factors are. At least 500 seats and what else? Michaelfeldman (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The official list is the one published annually as part of the Tony Awards eligibility rules. Why those theatres are selected? Mostly just the size (minimum 500 seats, as you note). All but the Beaumont are in the Theatre District, but to some extent the Theatre District is defined by where the theatres are located. That said, there are some theatres over 500 seats that are not Broadway theatres (like City Center, Radio City, the Beacon, etc). Why not those? Because they don't usually host "legitimate theatre", that is narativist straight plays and musicals; they're mostly concert venues and such. So it's as much about the type of use as the size. Also there's the contracts. That's a big part of it: which houses are covered by the Broadway craft union contracts. So there's multiple factors. But there is a definitive list. It should be one larger the next time the list is published, in fact. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
But shouldn't we have some of the history of when there came to be a quasi-official distinction of which theatres are considered "Broadway" theatres? - Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Names of theatres

An editor changed the names of some of the theatres (apparently to include the first name of the person for whom it was named). I think the theatres have "official" names and we cannot arbitrarily change them. See the Shubert official site for the official names of all but 1 of the theatres that was changed: [[3]]. The last one, the Lunt-Fontanne, is a Nederlander theatre, see:[[4]]. Also see the Broadway League site: [[5]] for the list of theatres with their official names.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I made edits to clarify "run" and added comment about financial risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielGlazer (talk • contribs) 05:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

hi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.255.123 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Brighton Beach Memoirs/Broadway Bound

On the chart, should these be considered two seperate productions, as they have different opening dates? 98.169.36.170 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they also have (slightly) different casts. JeanColumbia (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Listing current productions in this article

This discussion has been moved to this page from [6] because it pertains to this article as much as it does to West End theatre. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, im a member of wiki project musical theatre. I was just looking at this article and it is plagued by an awful awful list of aparently "Notable" performers. The list is just far too long, and for me just doesn't achieve anything. Can anyone think of another way? I mean some people are on the list 3 and 4 times and some repeated each year for the same show. I'll make an attempt at it, lemme know what you think Mark E (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the list of West End theatres should not include the most recent production with its opening and closing dates. This information belongs in the articles about the specific theaters, not in a general article about the West End. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm i sort of disagree on that one. It matches the format of the Broadway Theatre article and I think its useful to have an overview of what is on in the west end at this moment in time. I've taken out the list of performers though, was just no way to justify it being there.Mark E (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact it matches the Broadway theatre article doesn't make it right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and listing productions currently playing in the West End makes it a theatre guide and, inadvertently, an advertisement. I would prefer to see this list include the theatre's opening date and capacity and leave the production data to the specific theatre articles themselves. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is important to have the show currently playing at the theatre listed, although maybe not the opening/closing date of the production. I've just been adding stuff to the already existing template. I think the idea of having the opening date of the theatre is a good one, but this is probably not the sort of information people looking at a general article will want, so the production information is more important.Mark E (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm not explaining myself well or you're not grasping or simply ignoring the point I'm trying to make. I see nothing wrong with listing a current production in an article about a specific theatre, but in a general article about West End theatre, I don't think this information is pertinent or appropriate. The emphasis of the article is not supposed to be on the individual theatres themselves, but rather the history of West End theatre. How and when did it become the center of theatrical productions in London? (Amazingly, this very important issue isn't addressed at all!) What playwrights and performers began their careers there? What noteworthy productions premiered there? A list of theatres considered to be West End venues makes sense, but additional information about them should be in their own articles, which is the purpose of a Wikilink . . . if people want to know more about the history of XYZ Theatre, they can click on its link. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that all the history is important, I would put it in myself but I don't have enough knowledge on that subject but i still think the current productions is important, otherwise it would just be an endless list.Mark E (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You have said, "I think it is important to have the show currently playing at the theatre listed," but without explaining why, other than because it matches the format of the Broadway Theatre article, whereas I have offered several valid reasons to support my opinion. Clearly we never will agree on this issue. I wish other people involved in this project would comment, but this discussion page doesn't seem to draw the attention the one for the film project does. In any event, I have added some historical details to the article, since it had an overload of contemporary information and nothing about the past. It's not much, but it's a start. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's Great! And I agree its a shame that the projects arn't more active. Theatre is such an important aspect of the entertainment industry that seems to be often forgotten. And for having the list at the moment I think it is useful to 1) Give an overview of the current shows that are on. I'll be the first to agree the history is important, but the present it also important, and if we are going to have a list of theatres in the West End why not provide this information. I don't think the opening/closing dates of the production are important at all but I wouldn't know how to change the table 2) General for people who want to decide what to see. I would often check to see what was playing before it became so out of date that it wasn't a viable source anymore. Im happy to keep updating the article when new shows open/close. Mark E (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and listing productions currently playing in the West End makes it a theatre guide and, inadvertently, an advertisement. Please refer to [7], where it very specifically states, "Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera." Similary, an article about West End theatre should not list current productions. If people want to decide what to see, there are numerous websites where that information is available, but they shouldn't be looking for a list of current events in an encyclopedia. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

MarkE asked for my thoughts on this subject. On first reading, it appears that the guidelines that LiteraryMaven cited (Wikipedia is not a directory) govern here. Showing the production for the theater would seem to be prohibited under those guidelines. I think that this issue should be raised in several places to get some discussion going and to help reach a consensus. I suggest raisng this on the talk pages of the 2 articles involved--West End theatre and Broadway theatre. You might also want to drop a note at the Musical theatre project talk page. I want to note that I have no strong feeling about either keeping the list of shows, deleting them, or some variation. However, the guidelines --that I see so far-- are on the side of deleting. This is not a matter of what is "nice to have", or "it's convenient", it's what makes an article readable and informative within the guidelines. (As a final thought, everyone should read: WP:IGNORE just for fun!) JeanColumbia (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that a lot of the productions listed in this article are scheduled to open sometime in 2010. Since it's not uncommon for shows to be postponed ot cancelled, isn't it premature to list these? LargoLarry (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

True, shows are sometimes cancelled but some films that arn't due to be released until 2011/2012 already have their own articles! If there is a source announcing the show will open then the majority of the time it will happen. If it doesn't the article can easily be changed.Mark E (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why no talk of decline?

I should say at the start I'm no expert on this topic. But my understanding of Broadway theatre was that it went into a huge decline in the sixties, or late sixties and it never fully recovered. This is my understanding and fully confess I could be wrong. But what I understood, was that the height of the Broadway shows was the 1950s and early 60s and, even today, it has never reached that level. I'm not talking about dollars (inflationary, or not), but I mean in terms of Broadway's influence on American culture was far greater than it is today. The history section seems to gloss over the 1950s completely and nowhere in the article is there any hint of decline. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it going to be theatre or theater?

I see both in the body of the article. Strange. Tony (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Next to Normal Closure?

I'm curious where the date of the 16th came from. I did a google search, and found no concrete evidence the show is closing...I also don't see any mention on the original article, or any sources on this one. 76.116.137.55 (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a rumor circulating around the web for a couple weeks now. Most people on the web think that it's going to close on January 2nd if they think it's closing because that was the ending date on the ticket block. Whether that was just for that specific block, or whether it was for the show is anyone's guess. Regardless, all of the speculation is just rumors. ~Lvb314 t·c 21:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I HIGHLY doubt it's closing on the 2nd, because you can buy tickets for dates up to the 16th...65.246.161.26 (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Theatre or theater?

Now I am a big fan of using theatre over theater (gf likes me to act more British), but I am seeing a smattering of both spellings in the article. Theatre is favoured, but there should be consistency in the text. Is it customary to use American English in American topics or am I mistaken? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally think everything should be "theatre". This is the most common way of spelling it.Mark E (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Still though it is British and Commonwealth English rather than American English, and there's always a great big hullaballuh over that and what topics should be in what spelling. However, as you said, theatre is the one most commonly used here in the article. If no one has any objections about it being British English, the 23 24 in-text instances (the first instance is for the The Broadway Theater) (scratch that, the article for that is titld The_Broadway_Theatre) should be changed to theatre for the sake of consistency. It also just looks nicer tbh. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
This subject (spelling of theat(re)(er)) has been discussed in another article (Musical theatre), see that discussion here: [8]. That discussion, and comments, also apply here as well, at least as far as my comments are concerned. (I will let others speak for themselves.) If there are inconsistencies in this article, I will be happy to change all to "theatre", unless there is a valid reason for the "theater" spelling (such as the proper/legal title/name of a venue).JeanColumbia (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I made the usage of "theatre" consistent throughout, except when we are quoting something that said "theater". There is a footnote in the article explaining the choice of spelling. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, wunderbar, great work! . Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is the correct and I support it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually this needs to be re-opened. The MOS rule is that purely US topics use US spelling. Is anyone prepared to argue that this is not a purely US topics. (I agree of course with the consensus that general topics in this field should use theatre. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you provide that MOS link please?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Per: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling Theater is for a building and Theatre is for a performance (As the American prefered variants). This article is clearly about the latter. (Of sourse, we also do not change the proper spelling when the theatre is company or the name of a building has established the English variant. So no, this does not need to be re-opened.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
How did you reach that conclusion? In most cases I would agree that "theatre" is preferred, but the link you provided does not seem to say what you've suggested. One thing it does say is, ❝The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that "theater" is used except in proper names.❞ That would suggest to me that "theater" is the proper spelling for this article based on the policy for articles with strong national ties. --Xiaphias (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
There's been extensive conversation about this. In New York City, and on Broadway in particular, "theatre" is the preferred spelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Prefered by whom, exactly? I'm just saying, since Wikipedia's policy is to use the national dialect for articles with strong national ties, then it seems to me that the only pertinent question here is, which variant constitutes the standard American spelling? The link Amadscientist mentioned suggests that would be "theater", but perhaps there is other data to the contrary. --Xiaphias (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Curtain Critic Scores

IP 74.68.140.136 has recently added ratings published at [www.curtaincritic.com] to the Broadway theatre article, and while this appears to be a good faith edit, I don't think the information belongs here. The pages for individual musicals include critics' reactions to the show; the Broadway theatre page is meant to be a reference work concerning Broadway theatre in general, not providing information about specific productions. Also, after looking at the curtaincritic.com site, I don't think it's necessarily a reliable source. it is not apparent 1)who calculates the ratings 2)what the formula is 3)who the critics and publications are that they use to determine their ratings. I'd like to remove the information, but I want to see if anyone else has an opinion on the matter. MarianWilde (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I made the above post a few days ago, and there have been no other comments. After a look at WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE, I'm more firmly of the opinion that dubiously calculated critics' ratings in aggregate do not belong on this page. I believe that the "not an electronic program guide" statement within WP:NOTDIR and the "not a travel guide" statement within WP:NOTGUIDE apply to this situation. To paraphrase, Wikipedia is not a theatre guide, and I am going to remove the curtaincritic.com scores. MarianWilde (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Just saw this today--I agree with MarianWilde.Flami72 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To be announced section proposal

In the "To be announced" section, there are columns and, in my opinion, somwhat confusing and arbitrary headings for the listings. I would prefer somewhat simpler and straight forward "Musicals" and "Plays" sections, without the headings for revivals, originals, this season, next season, etc. Also, I really would like references! Anyway, I plan on revising this section into the simpler format later today or tomorrow, unless there are objections. (Note that I will not delete the actual listings, merely remove column format & extensive, confusing, and, in some cases, speculative, headings.)

My editing this section does not in any way give my implicit or explicit approval/agreement that I think the section should actually exist. I think this section passes the crystal ball test (WP:CRYSTAL for deleton, but I do not intend to tilt at windmills on this subject.Flami72 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Columns and confusing/ misleading headings removed, as I noted above. I also added a template asking for additional references. During the day, I will try to add references, and will re-order the list, either alphabetically or by date.Flami72 (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

School project

As a school project, I hope to change the first picture.Changdaey (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? and to what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Source 26 link

Source 26 link is incorrect. Updated link should be: http://www.local802afm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Broadway_Agreement%2007_10.pdf Same page 10 reference is appropriate. Jakebond70 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

theatre footnote

There is absolutely no reason to remove the footnote as was done here. The footnote is relevant only to the spelling of the word theatre, not the article itself. So removing the footnote and then adding the text back in as a new third paragraph is nonsensical. The paragraph is nothing to do with Broadway theatre. Its relevant because of wording but not to the article itself.Blethering Scot 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A footnote after two words of the very first sentence of the article is a glaring interruption. I would say that the information is relevant and useful, and to bury it in a footnote only means that people are less likely to read it. You said in an edit summary, though, that it was irrelevant, in which case it should be removed. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
No i said its an irrelevant paragraph, which is exactly what I've said above. It is not useful to include a paragraph about the spelling of a word in an article that is about Broadway. Its relevant only as an explanatory footnote, not in the lead. I would also say its hardly a disruption, by that logic inline citations are an unnecessary interruption to the flow of an article. It a necessary evil.Blethering Scot 22:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is about a spelling used in contexts particular to Broadway. If it's worth noting, it's worth noting in the text. If it's not worth noting, it should be removed. Placing it as an interruption after two words of the article is really poor writing. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Blethering Scot, except that it is necessary and not evil. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The bigger problem than where to put it is WP:V and WP:NOR. Where is the source for the claim in this note? Wouldn't it be better to just stick with the common/American spelling, as in Theater District, Manhattan, and as most books do? Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous links

While thousands of pages correctly link to Broadway theatre, about a hundred or more link Broadway Theatre (uppercase), and many of these intend the Broadway Theatre. I fixed it so that Broadway Theatre is now the disambig page, which hopefully will mean that those links will automatically pick up "disambuation needed" tags. I fixed all at Broadway Theater (caps, er) already, and fixed a few dozen at Broadway Theatre, too, but there's still more cleanup needed to sort out the mess. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Some exciting TAFI news!

A series of articles under this topic have been nominated at The Today's Article For Improvement project. What we do is organise collaborations between editors whereby each week we focus on bringing an article up to GA/FA. Please head over there and support (or oppose) the nominated articles.--Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Advertising site link

For the record:

User talk:Ecanna added an advertising link (in my opinion) to the external links section on July 25, 2016 @11:51. I deleted that linlk, cited WP:ADV on July 25, 2016 @12:00. I placed a warning regarding advertising on Ecanna' s talk page on July 25, 2016 @12:02. The link was again added on July 25, 2016 @ 12:12. I will not revert again because I do not want to get into an WP:EDITWAR, and I am mindfull of WP:3RR.Flami72 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Broadway theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Broadway theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broadway_theatre/Archive_1&oldid=1162037262"