Talk:Broadway (Manhattan)

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Hudson Valley Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Mid-importance).

U.S. Streets Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Select Bus Service#M60 route|Select Bus Service]] The anchor (#M60 route) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

article move?

Wetman: How about thoroughfare here instead of avenue. It's a tricky wording, I think you'll agree, since Broadway (at least below 59th), technically isn't an avenue, although it's definitely more an avenue than a street. I thought maybe a more general word worked better here. -- Decumanus 21:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

theatre article

I have created a separate page for Broadway theatre that focuses solely on the professional group of Broadway theatres. I did leave everything about theatre along Broadway on this page because it is short and concise. Others may prefer that it be removed and all that information be relegated to the Broadway theatre page. In making this move, I have been working to change all the links on the hundreds of pages linking to Broadway, but referencing specifically Broadway theatre (e.g., premiered on Broadway, Broadway debute, Broadway premiere, etc.) The few instances of Broadway that use Broadway to refer to the street in New York or to point to a location in New York (not directly associated with theatre) will be left linking to this page. Assistance changing links is greatly appreciated. I will continue to come back and move a dozen or so at a time as time permits.

Please note the with the new page, I have opted for the spelling Broadway theatre with and "re" because the League of American Theatres and the American Theatre Wing (two groups that work directly with Broadway theatre) spell theatre with an "re." Please see http://webcdi.com/theater/theatre.php, http://www.americantheatrewing.org/, or http://www.broadway.org/ to see why this spelling was chose.

DJKS 18:20, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article should be moved

All other manhattan streets now say Street Name (Manhattan) -- and Broadway should be no different. See Category:Streets_in_Manhattan. Also note that there are indeed streets named Broadway in Queens and Brooklyn. Any objections? If not, I'll move it myself. -Quasipalm 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was a good idea to move the article, nor do I think enough time was allowed for a discussion of the subject. There's being bold, and then there's not waiting an hour after posting this question. Broadway continues north into the Bronx over the Broadway Bridge, which far better justifies the "New York City" qualifier. The other Broadways can still have articles that use Queens or Brroklyn as qualifiers without disturbing this article. Any other thought on the subject before the move is done? Alansohn 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alansohn: the reason it was Broadway (New York City) instead of Broadway (Manhattan) is because Broadway's not just in Manhattan. Actually, does it remain "Broadway" by name after leaving the Bronx? In that case, it should probably be Broadway (New York). AJD 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a broadway in the bronx, manhattan, queens, brooklyn, and staten island -- I don't think (New York City) is clear enough. I also think that there's no reason Broadway is the only article in Category:Streets in Manhattan that isn't qualified by borough. Am I just being dense here? -Quasipalm 02:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the Broadways in all five boroughs, and I think that the one in Manhattan is what most people, including new Yorkers, associate as the Broadway. I also question the lack of discusison before moving an article that is referenced so extensively elsewhere in Wikipedia. Alansohn 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So should we move 42nd Street (Manhattan), Bleecker Street (Manhattan), Houston Street (Manhattan), Park Avenue (Manhattan), and over a dozen other street articles to the (New York City) name space too? Just because the Broadway is much more prominent doesn't mean that the following qualifier shouldn't be precise and accurate. I do apologize for not allowing more discussion before moving the article -- i thought it would non-controversial and I was being bold. However, don't freak out, because we can always move it back if there is consensus for (New York City). -Quasipalm 14:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Avenue redirects the reader to Fifth Avenue (Manhattan). Thus all references to the Fifth Avenue need to be rendered [[Fifth Avenue (Manhattan)|Fifth Avenue]]. Now just pause a moment and think: is the Wikipedia reader being served by extending such foolishness, to carry out some vague sense of the importance of consistency? The Wikipedia reader entering "Broadway" will be looking for-- what? --

42nd Street (Manhattan), Bleecker Street (Manhattan), Houston Street (Manhattan), are all poor examples of your point, as they all exist entirely within the Borough of Manhattan. Park Avenue (Manhattan) would be an excellent candidate to be renamed as Park Avenue (New York City), as it continues into the Bronx with the same name as a major thoroughfare (though the existing article ignores the Bronx portion of the road with a reference to the as-of-now non-existent article Park Avenue (Bronx)). An excellent example of an existing article is Atlantic Avenue (New York City), which covers a road that extends between Brooklyn and Queens, even though there is a (relatively minor) street by that same name in Staten Island. While the other Broadways are not as minor as the other Atlantic Avenue, the Broadway that runs through Manhattan and the Bronx is rather more notable than its namesakes in the other boroughs. While I will acknowledge that it's not clear cut, there is an excellent case to be made for Broadway (New York City). We should probably reconsider the name in an organized fashion and implement the result after a consensus is generated. Alansohn 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to anyone tracking changes in this article. I added info about the name Broadway being used on US 9 in the towns and cities in Westchester as far north as State Route 117 in Mount Pleasant, then saw that the info was already there in the article, so I removed my addition. Next time I'll be sure to read the whole article instead of skimming. Misterdoe 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be called Broadway (New York City), since there's a major Broadway in Brooklyn. It also continues into Yonkers, so Broadway (New York City) has the same problems as Broadway (Manhattan). Would Broadway (Hudson Valley) work? --NE2 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be really confusing. I prefer "New York City", since it is the Broadway in New York. But I don't really have an issue with "Manhattan"; I just followed what the above discussion seemed to conclude with. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Fifth Avene

Tesla's workshop on "south Fifth Avenue" was on a different street, south of Washington Square. It may be LaGuardia Place nowadays. --Wetman 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not be moved, but...

Could anyone add sections to the article describing the Bronx and Westchester portions of Broadway (and expand upon the northern half of Manhattan)? The article currently reads very much like the world ends at 59th St. 82.36.26.229 03:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lighting

article used to say B'way was first electric lit avenue in US. History_of_street_lighting_in_the_United_States says it was Cleveland, 1879, but has no cite. I've added waffle words here. -- Akb4 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York City or Manhattan?

This refers to Broadway in Manhattan and doesnt represent New york city as a whole. There is a broadway in EVERY borough and this one is exclusively about MANHATTAN.

Actually, this refers to Broadway in Manhattan and the Bronx, not just Manhattan. AJD (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; yesterday I biked along the Broadways of Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn. It's been a month since I was in that part of The Bronx, and half a year since I visited Broadway of northern Staten Island, but yes, let's have a paragraph about them. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway (New York City) → Broadway (Manhattan) — There are so many Broadways in New York City, it has to be clarified. Gryffindor (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This Broadway (the famous one) is in Manhattan and the Bronx. None of the others (only three, I think) have or are likely to have a WP article, but if they ever do we can just put a hatnote on this article. Station1 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article says it extends through Yonkers, so NYC is inappropriate, it should be Broadway (New York) or Broadway (downstate New York) instead. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway (New York) would be fine with me. It already redirects here. Station1 (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I added the footnote mentioning other Broadways in New York City [1] as a response to the talk section directly above this one. As this Broadway serves both Manhattan and the Bronx, I am content with the way the article is presently named. This street does continue to be named Broadway as U.S. Route 9 in Yonkers and northward, and U.S. Route 9 in New York is fine to detail the road. Of the other 3 streets named Broadway in New York City, the Brooklyn or the Queens streets would be the most likely to receive an article, as they are both main thoroughfares in those boroughs and the BMT Jamaica Line and the IND Queens Boulevard Line, respectively, pass along each street. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Exit list?

Why does this article need a junction list in order to be promoted? [2] Assuming the list covers all major intersections, that would be roughly every subway station on Broadway, and more. And how would mileposts be calculated? Tinlinkin (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an article to be considered at least C-Class for USRD, it must have a route description, history, and a junction list per WP:USRD/A. If you disagree, I suggest discussing this at WT:USRD. – T M F 16:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree; I didn't understand how the article was assessed, but I do now. I tried to do a junction list myself last week (and without the help of WP:RJL, which I found today), but it would be better if another user at USRD did it, and I know one. Thanks for the reply. Tinlinkin (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names on the pavement

Two weeks ago I was in NYC and walked on Broadway for a while. I noticed there were a lot of names and dates on the pavement, but never found out why they are there and didn't think about it again until now. It seemed very random: the first married couple to fly an airplane, something about the queen of the Netherlands, something about a French or Italian president (should have written this back then while it was still fresh in my memory). Can anyone shed some light on this and perhaps add it to the article? -- Sander (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are people who have been subjects of ticker-tape parades on lower Broadway. Station1 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Shouldn't this information be added to the article? Sander (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've merged Canyon of Heroes into this article. Station1 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS exemption?

Since I'm seemingly getting trolled by User:Beyond My Ken with this issue (who reverted my initial edit nine days ago promising me an explanation, but despite editing Wikipedia everyday since has not responded yet), I'm asking everybody else: should this article adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (in particular MOS:APPENDIX)? If not, what merits the exemption? --bender235 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last chance for User:Beyond My Ken before I take this to WP:ANI: what is the benefit of not having this article MOS-compliant? Where is, in fact, the improvement behind this edit? I give you one week to reply. --bender235 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's start with basic principles, beginning with the difference between a policy and a guideline. It's fairly simply, really, a policy must be folllowed, and a guideline is there to guide us in our editing. It's more than a suggestion, but significantly less than a policy. The Manual of Style is, of course, one of our most important guidelines, containing to a certain extent the accumulated wisdom of Wikipedia editors over the years, but, despite that, it is still a guideline, and not a policy. We are not required to follow it slavishly and without thought, and it is supposed to represent actual editing practices -- that is, as a guideline, it is intended to be descriptive and not prescriptive.

So, what, then, is the attitude we should take towards the MOS? Well, the answer to that lies in something that is a policy, WP:IAR:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

This policy (not a guideline or suggestion) flows naturally from fifth of Wikipedias Five Pillars:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time.

The ability to evolve over time is important here as well: if a guideline is interpreted too strictly and too literally, if all possible changes to the guideline are squealched because they don't conform to the current version, then there is absolutely no possibility of any change over time, and the Fifth Pillar has been violated.

It is for these reasons that to ask "Should this edit get an exemption from MOS" is very much the wrong question, and displays what may be a basic misunderstanding about how Wikipedia is set up to work. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no Department of MOS Exemptions where one files a Form ME-A-32X in triplicate in order to be issued an exemption by a faceless worker falling asleep behind a counter. The real, proper question to ask about any non-standard edit is "Does it improve the encycylopedia?" If it does, then it's irrelevant what the MOS says, because the MOS (dare I say it?) can be wrong. The MOS may be behind the times. The MOS may never have encountered the new possibility that the edit represents.

(It's also best not to be sidetracked by the comment that often pops up: "Then change the MOS", because the MOS is intended to describe what we do, so if we change what we do, the MOS will be changed, in time. Many editors seem to enjoy the "debating society" aspects of Wikipedia, but many others, such as myself, do not. We are here to improve articles, not to spend inordinate amounts of time debating how many ways we will allow an angel to dance on the Wiki-pin.)

So, basic principles aside, why is the way I've organized the bottom of the article that Bender235 objects to an improvement? Well, basically, we're here to provide articles for the reader, and it is to our advantage, and to the benefit of the reader, to make those articles as streamlined and easy to read as possible. If we follow, literally, and without thought, the "rules" of the MOS regarding the "back of the book", we can end up with separate sections for footnotes, explanatory notes, sources, citations, bibliographies, further reading lists, etc, etc. Given that "See also" and "External links" are firmly ensconced in their own sections, that means that even a quite short article will sometimes have in its index two or three sections of actual content, and then four or five "back of the book" sections, which are, for the most part, only of interest to a small portion of the reading audience. It's much better to combine as many of those supporting sections into a single section, "References", to which the interested reader can go, knowing that he or she is going to get there all the notes and books and sources connected to the article. The index is streamlined and not overwhelmed by material that is basically irrelevant to a large portion of our users, but those who want that information know exactly where to go.

This seems to me to be a very reasonable way to organize an article's "back of the book", and a distinct improvement (albeit a small one - which, in my opinion, is being made much too much of a fuss over) that is entirely justifiable under the principles outlined above. For these reasons, I suggest that Bender235 leave the formatting as I have put it, and move on to improving articles, just as I have been doing and intend to return to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, on a personal note, it's really not very nice (or accurate in any way) to call an editor who's been here since 2005 and has over 123,000 edits to over 23,000 unique pages "a troll". That I did not answer Bender235's concern in a timely fashion is entirely my fault, and I apologize for it, but it really doesn't justify that kind of aspersion, nor the threat to go to AN/I - especially when this is a non-content matter of, in my opinion, very minor importance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia about as long as you, and I apologize for my reactions. After two weeks of waiting for a simple explanation, I had the feeling of being in the middle of a filibuster here. Thanks for finally providing your thoughts. Yet, even though I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. What you're saying is basically "the current structure of the article is better (for the reader) then what WP:MOS recommends". If that was the case (which I disagree), then we should change the MOS. Because, after all, what helps the reader most is consistent style and article structure throughout Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia reader is used to find additional literature on a topic in the "Further reading" section, then every article providing additional literature should name that particular section "Further reading", not to mention make it a seperate section in the first place. So far, this is between you and me, and since you have repeatedly claimed ownership over this article, I will not re-structure the article w/out further consent from other users, thus avoiding an edit war. --bender235 (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of another point I'd intended to make: you've misconstrued the list of books here as a "further reading" list - it is not, it is a list of sources used in the writing of the article, which were not specifically notated via refs. As you know, the formalization of references has been an ongoing process, and many articles were initially put together with only a list of sources, and no specific citations.

As for changing the MOS: I would be overjoyed if the MOS would change to recognize this format, but I am not willing -- as I noted above -- to put in the many hours of debate that would take, and endure the hassles connected with it, when that time could be used to improve articles or upload my images on Commons. I have no interest in that very tedious and frustrating process, which is one of the worst aspect of Wikipedia, when "changing by example" is an available option via IAR and the Fifth Pillar. "If you build it, they will come", and if you do it, the MOS will, eventually catch up to it. In other words, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and this way is the one which I find most congenial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved, as I am withdrawing my request. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway (Manhattan) → Broadway (New York) – ~~The entire length of Broadway is not in Manhattan, which is what the title implies. Epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)~~ I am withdrawing my request. Epicgenius (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "New York" means New York State, and there is more than one "Broadway" in New York State outside of New York City, so the disambiguation would not refer to a single place. What the current title implies is that "Broadway" most often refers to the stretch of the street which orginates and runs-through in Manhattan. Yes, it continues into the Bronx, and the same route (NY9A) is also called "Broadway" in many (but not all) localities it runs through in Westchester, but the disambiguator is intended to differentiate between the other "Broadways" in New York City (in Brooklyn and Queens) and East and West Broadway in Manhattan. Using a "New York" disambiguator would not do that, and would be less than precise. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose there's more than one Broadway in New York City, Broadway (disambiguation) clearly shows that. Broadway (Manhattan and Bronx) might be an option, but there's only a single paragraph about the Bronx and Westchester, so that's not the actual content of this article. Instead you can create a new article for Broadway (Bronx). -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current proposed title of "Broadway (New York)". Broadway (New York City) also currently is a disambiguation page, listing Broadway (Manhattan), Broadway (Brooklyn), and other similar streets in New York City. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, this page was at "Broadway (New York City)", but the disambiguator always bothered me, because it wasn't accurate, considering the Broadway in Brooklyn and Queens, also part of New York City - so I moved it here, then remade "Broadway (NYC)" into a DAB page. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When pages are moved, care needs to be taken that associated subpages are moved as well or certain parameters in templates are specified appropriately. In this case, failing to keep Template:Attached KML/Broadway (New York City) in sync broke the route maps at the top of Broadway (Manhattan). -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

WP:SOFIXIT - BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, shouldn't those things point to "CURRENT PAGE" rather than the page name? Sounds like a problem in the writing of the template. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the template does and that's why it was broken. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert undiscussed move back to Broadway (New York City). Zarcadia (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, since this move contravened longstanding consensus established earlier on this page. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Too bad that consensus was inaccurate in this case, but that's what makes horse racing. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Next time, BMK, you should bring controversial moves like this up on the respective talk pages. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BMK, It was pointed out in the earlier discussion that the "Broadway" discussed in this article goes beyond the boundaries of Manhattan and into other parts of New York City. Whether you agree with this or not, that is surely a legitimate basis on which to oppose such a move, and the move was indeed opposed by most participants in that discussion. Also, note that a disambiguated term can redirect to another disambiguated term for which it is the primary topic. If someone in Bangladesh or Bolivia or Brighton searches for Broadway (New York City), what do you think they are likely to be searching for? bd2412 T 15:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, I'm aware both of Broadway's path and what people will probably be searching for, as I brought up those very subjects myself in this discussion. What to do about that is where opinions apparently differ. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: What is the best name for the article about the street called "Broadway" which originates in Manhattan?

Of the options presented, Broadway (Manhattan) seems to have easily the most support as the article title. As the discussion has run for a full 30 days, I'm closing it as "move to Broadway (Manhattan)" and will make the page moves shortly. 28bytes (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now that the RM just above has been withdrawn, perhaps we can have a general RfC about what the best name for the article about "Broadway", the noted street which originates in Manhattan, is nicknamed the "The Canyon of Heroes" downtown and "The Great White Way" in the Theatre District, then runs through the Bronx, and continues as Route 9A through Westchester County, where in many localities, but not all, it is called "Broadway". The last RM about it was 2 1/2 years ago, and had very little response. Since there's a current focus here at the moment, perhaps we can get more of a variety of opinions.

I believe that I've listed below, each in their own subsection, the viable options. Could we !vote and discuss each option within each section, in order to get a sense of what the consensus is? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified every editor who participated in previous discussion, regardless of the views they expressed. I had previously posted a neutral pointer on the talk page of WikiProject NYC, and will now do the same for WikiProject U.S. Streets. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see who I notified on my contrib list (all those 552 and 553 byte edits). If I've missed anyone, feel free to notify them - I just found two that I had missed. Please avoid contravening the policy on canvassing by notifying only people of one particular view. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Should we request closure at WP:AN/RFC? Note also that since any result of this RfC would only include a move, not deletion, I don't think we specifically need an administrator. Any uninvolved editor should do. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested at AN that an admin close it - I think an admin close would help dispel doubts about the result, but if no admin comes by to close it, a non-admin close is better than none at all. BMK (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Broadway

This option would require moving the current DAB at Broadway to Broadway (disambiguation) (which is a redirect to Broadway right now), allowing the street to take over as the primary subject.

Support - This is my preferred option, since I believe that when most people refer to "Broadway" this is what they mean. Even those who are using "Broadway" to mean the Broadway theatre are using it as a metonym. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it should redirect to Broadway theatre, since they are not looking for the street, they are looking for theatre, therefore the street isn't what they're looking for, especially as some theatres are not on the street itself, and the theatre district covers more than just Broadway. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When someone says Broadway, I'm thinking they're meaning either the street in Manhattan or the theatre district as a metonym. If a reader types in 'Broadway', almost certainly that's what they want, but there should be a hatnote with links to other uses of Broadway.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Certainly not PT due to Broadway theater having, at the very least, an equal claim. Zarcadia (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, since I've worked on Broadway shows - maybe I'm overcompensating, trying not to give my own profession more prominence than it deserves. In any case, point taken, I think I'll scratch my support here in favor of "Broadway (Manhattan)" below, although I won't go so far as to oppose this option. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What about all of the other "Broadways" having equal claim? Epicgenius (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Broadway (New York City)

This is where the article is at this moment.

Support – technically, there are Broadways in all five boroughs, but this particular Broadway goes through the most boroughs. Epicgenius (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this article doesn't really cover the Bronx. Instead a separate article on Broadway north of the bridge should be created. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If your objection is that "this article doesn't really cover the Bronx", the solution is to improve the article by including such coverage. bd2412 T 03:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The portion in the Bronx extends further, leading outside of New York City itself, so "New York City" doesn't cover this topic if we're to cover it's length. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Following WP:COMMONNAME, most of the route that people around the world actually know is in NYC, not in Westchester. And anyway, U.S. Route 9 in New York can cover information on the part of Broadway outside of the city, or even outside of Manhattan. Epicgenius (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article is already residing at the common name, that's "Broadway". The disambiguator has nothing to do with the common name, that's why it's a disambiguator. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So would Broadway (New York) be a better disambiguator? Epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's up in the followup section on other names. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (equal with "Broadway (Manhattan)"). As someone who is not familiar with New York, I'd expect Broadway to be either Broadway theatre or disambiguation. If this article covers the portion in more than one borough (I have no opinion about whether it should or not) then it should be at this title with a redirect from Broadway (Manhattan) as it is this article that people using both search terms are significantly most likely to be looking for. There should be a hatnote to the dab page for people looking for other streets in NYC. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broadway (Manhattan)

This is where I moved the article to, but was reverted on the basis of the existing consensus. Currently a redirect to Broadway (New York City)

Support – I'd argue one might expect Broadway to be Broadway theatre, etc, hence disambiguation would be the best fit. Broadway (New York City) is just plain confusing, when Broadway (Brooklyn) is also in New York City. Further reasoning to opt with appending (Manhattan) may simply be for consistency with other articles, such as Spring Street (Manhattan), Washington Street (Manhattan), etc. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's only a small paragraph about Broadway outside of Manhattan. The other portions of Broadway beyond the bridge should be a separate article, as it extends OUTSIDE NEWYORKCITY, so "New York City" isn't a proper disambiguator, if we choose to properly cover the complete length of this street. This article only really covers Manhattan. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (equal with "Broadway (New York City)"). If this article covers only or primarily the section in Manahattan (I have no opinion about whether it should cover the portion in other boroughs or not) then it should be at this title with a redirect from Broadway (New York City) as it is this article that people using both search terms are significantly most likely to be looking for. There should be a hatnote to the dab page for people looking for other streets in NYC. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Thryduulf: Could the article be split into two parts, one for Manhattan and one for the Bronx and Westchester, if that is the case?~~ Dismiss that, it is covered below. Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - ~~Although option 1 is my first choice, this would be my second. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Now my preferred option. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is one in every borough, I would tend to go with this option. Gryffindor (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as my second choice; option 1 is my first, with disambiguation links so that if someone is searching for the term which means a procedure for weighing a heavy lady, they can find that too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Re-reading the article, the subject of the text included here is the portion of the road in Manhattan. I'd love to call it just "Broadway", and the claim of being the primary topic is a strong one, but Broadway theatre and the other Broadways in the city and elsewhere present a justifiable need for disambiguation. It also fits the naming convention for Manhattan streets, though no other road heads out of the borough. As to the other diambiguation options, "New York City" conflicts with the other Broadways in the city and the other options including the Bronx and / or Westchester are even harder to justify. There is no perfect answer and this one is the strongest of the viable alternatives. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The lede states: Broadway /ˈbrɔːdweɪ/ is a road in the U.S. state of New York. Perhaps best known for the boulevard portion that runs through the borough of Manhattan in New York City, it actually runs 13 mi (21 km) through Manhattan and 2 mi (3.2 km) through the Bronx, exiting north from the city to run an additional 18 mi (29 km) through the municipalities of Yonkers, Hastings-On-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry, Irvington, Tarrytown and terminating north of Sleepy Hollow in Westchester County. Yes, the best known part is on Manhattan, but using the title Broadway (Manhattan) is not accurate for the scope of the article. If there is insufficient information about the parts outside Manhattan then that is part of the article that needs to be addressed. Zarcadia (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose – it's not all in Manhattan. In fact, it's not all in New York City. I will support ONLY if the route of Broadway in the Bronx and Westchester is covered in U.S. Route 9 in New York. Epicgenius (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the route description of Broadway through The Bronx, Westchester and beyond covered in U.S. Route 9 in New York#Route description. Am I missing something? — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
…the description is also in this article. Is that necessary? Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not, but it's only a small part of the article, not at all the main focus. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. Broadway (Manhattan and the Bronx) or Broadway (Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester) or some other variation on this

For those uncomfortable with the fact that the street in Manhattan doesn't run through only Manhattan

Weak support if we expand coverage to more than just a paragraph on the Bronx and beyond. I'd prefer a separate article on Broadway beyond the bridge. (This !vote does not conflict with my other support, as that depends on keeping focus on Manhattan; this !vote depends on expanding the article) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. Some other name

I did not include Broadway (New York) because the RM for that was withdrawn and received no "support" !votes in the very short time it was open, but those who prefer that, or some other possibility, can put there !votes here.

a. Broadway (New York)

Support move to Broadway (New York). I realize my opinion will be unpopular but I truly believe this is the best, and most appropriate, name for the title. Although the part of Broadway in Manhattan is the best known (and I'm not even calling that into question) it still extends out of the five boroughs and into NY state and with this clearly stated in the article the only logical title is Broadway (New York). Zarcadia (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are several Broadways in New York State that are not part of this Broadway. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the recent withdrawn RM. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the disambiguator is accurate – this Broadway isn't entirely in NYC, but it also doesn't leave the state at any point. Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

b. Broadway (southeastern New York) or something like that

It is accurate and quite concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am aware of no other article that uses "southeastern New York" as a disambiguator. Aside from that, the term is ambiguous, as it is not clear what counties it is meant to include (Rockland? Putnam? Orange?) However, Nassau and Suffolk would certainly be included and this Broadway does not run through them. In short, this disambiguator doesn't really seem to clarify anything. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a separate article for the Broadways in Nassau, Suffolk, Brooklyn, and Queens. Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why, are they notable? Or the one in Haverstraw in Rockland? The point isn't to make a multiplicity of articles about non-notable streets in every locality in SE New York State, but to find a disambiguator for the famous Broadway that's as accurate as possible and not misleading to the reader. I don't really see how either of the solutions you've proposed here do that very well. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so we have the ambiguous Broadway, the overprecise Broadway (New York) and Broadway (New York City), and the underprecise Broadway (Manhattan). And then we have U.S. Route 9 in New York, which basically covers Broadway north of 178th Street in Manhattan. Maybe this article can be split into two parts: the Manhattan part, which can stay, and the Bronx/Westchester part, which can go into the U.S. 9 article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no justification for a division along those lines. I believe you're overthinking this. Perhaps it would be better to allow other voices to express their opinions rather than cluttering up the page with your opinions and mine; that was the purpose of my setting up this RfC, to open the subject up to more editors. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the topic between Broadway (Manhattan) and NY-US9 sounds like a very good idea. This article only really details the Manhattan portion, the paragraph that deals with beyond the island is really just ancillary material. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Broadway (southeastern New York) ; the ones in Queens and Brooklyn are also in "southeastern New York" -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

c. Split between this article and the US9 article

Who actually favors splitting the article between here and U.S. 9?

As mentioned in the previous section, maybe this article can be split into two parts: the Manhattan part, which can stay, and the Bronx/Westchester part, which can go into the U.S. Route 9 in New York article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm.... that's essentially what we have now. The current article (this one) is primarily about the street in Manhattan, with some info on the Broanx and Westchester, while the U.S. Route 9 in New York article is about the entire road, with only a litle bit about the street in Manhattan. Given this, there doesn't seem to be a lot of need for any additional split, because the street in the Bronx and Westchester is not, by itself, notable. So, we're left with the original question, the purpose of the RfC, which is "What is the best name for this article." BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support That would be the way to go, with this article focusing on the Manhattan portion, and the US9 article covering the rest of the length. This article should then be called Broadway (Manhattan). -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

d. Broadway (New York City and Westchester)

Only this one runs through Westchester, out of all Broadways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As far as I know, as a former resident of Westchester, none of the streets named "Broadway" in Westchester which are continuous with the famous Broadway (that is, the parts of NYS Route 9A that some localities call "Broadway") are notable in and of themself, therefore sharing the disambiguator in this way seems unproductive, since the article is primarily about the Manhattan street. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this one also runs through Westchester. Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it doesn't cover the other Broadways in New York City. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead image size

I think the infobox image should be 300px, since 350px squeezes the "History" section on the Chromebook to about 250-300 pixels wide. Any thoughts on this? Epic Genius (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't use the Chromebook, use a computer. The image needs the size - but we can try 325px and see what happens. BMK (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it on Chromebook at 350, and I do not see the effect you're speaking of, the history section is about 400-450 pixels wide, plenty wide enough to read comformtably. What Chromebook are you talking about? (Just to remind you, you've had problems like this before, and when I check them out on Androids and iPhones, the problem is not duplicated.) BMK (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you, by any chance, have a HP Chromebook? That is the one that I am using, and the image and history sections are at least equally wide.

I use a MacBook Air as well, and for some reason, this problem doesn't occur there. Epic Genius (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chromebook is my son's, who's out on a date right now, but I'll ask him when he returns. How does 325 work? BMK (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

325px works well. Personally, I don't like squeezing the text between the infobox and the images, but it's just my preference. Epic Genius (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My son's Chromebook is an HP Chromebook 13. He runs both Chrome OS and Ubuntu as a front end, and we checked under both and saw no problems with 350px. However, if you're OK with 325, it's not ideal but it's OK on my end, so we can leave it there as far as I'm concerned. BMK (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I use the Chrome OS, and I see it differently through the Chromebook, but... I'm okay with 325px. 350px works for me in the MacBook, but it is small in the Chromebook (didn't check the model, though). Epic Genius (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Great White Way" information uses my work, credits someone else!

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/great_white_way

Just before I did my important work on the origin of "the Big Apple," I solved "the Great White Way." I identified SHep Friedman, from a detailed article in the New York Morning Telegraph. He was writing for the New York Evening Telegram in February 1902 when he wrote the now-famous headline, after a snowstorm covered Broadway white. Later, the term "Great White Way" applied to the bright lights of Broadway.

I do not write for Wikipedia, but I would like credit for my discoveries! Barry (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Barry Popik, you are free to edit Wikipedia articles just like anybody else. It would help, though, if you could cite reputable sources to support your claim. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable sources! I looked through the original New York Morning Telegraphs and found the origin to both the Big Apple and the Great White Way the same day. I found the New York Evening Telegram cite over 20 years ago. I gave my work away free to the New-York Historical Society, and I've written on the American Dialect Society listserv. I visited Shep Friedman grave in Fort Worth. I do not write for Wikipedia because I have my own website, but this is ridiculous.

Barry (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can simply Google "Barry Popik" and "Great White Way" and see that I get credit everywhere but here! I've got over 13,000 entries on my website, and it's never easy with Wikipedia to get credit for my work. If I do get proper credit, somebody always edits that away within a year.

Cassell's Dictionary of Slang - Page 644 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0304366366 Jonathon Green - 2005 - ‎Language Arts & Disciplines ... who controls and/or protects members of a Black race] Great White Way n. ... and as claimed by Barry Popik orig., it derives f. the title of Albert Bigelow Paine's .

Inside the Apple: A Streetwise History of New York City https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1416593934 Michelle Nevius, ‎James Nevius - 2009 - ‎History As linguistic historian Barry Popik has discovered, the name derives from a1901 novel ... been blanketedby snow and Broadwaywas, indeed, a “great white way.

The Banana Sculptor, the Purple Lady, and the All-night ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0743201221 Susan Sheehan, ‎Howard B. Means - 2002 - ‎Psychology Popik's best guess is that Fitz Gerald first heard the phrase in January 1920, a few days ... use of the phrase "Great White Way," used to describe a Broadway covered by snow, not one bathed in lights. ... And so life has gone for Barry Popik. Barry (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Avenue of Heroes" and the "Canyon of Heroes"

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/avenue_of_heroes_canyon_of_heroes/ While Wikipedia still doesn't give credit for my own work on "Great White Way" (I'm forbidden from properly crediting my own research--it's a long story), here is the 'Heroes" story. Lower Broadway was called the "Avenue of Heroes" in 1933. Then, in May 1942, Fifth Avenue stores from 34th Street to 59th Street displayed portraits of the military, becoming the new "Avenue of Heroes." Lower Broadway took a slightly new name, "Canyon of Heroes," in 1945. Barry (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added Archives

I will add 0 access-dates and 23 archive urls to the citations in this page. Details:

Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/15/nyregion/oldest-streets-are-protected-as-landmark.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C14F93A55107B93C5A9178DD85F408585F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B14FC3D5D167B93C0A81788D85F438585F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40716F73B5C137A93C7A9178DD85F468685F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C11FA3A581A7B93C7A9178AD95F478685F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C1FFB395812738DDDAB0994DD405B858AF1D3, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50717FC3F59117B93C5A8178AD85F428685F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/07/10/2008-07-10_city_to_make_two_broadway_lanes_bikes_wa.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/nyregion/12broadway.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/weekinreview/10dunlap.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/09/23/safety-fixes-slated-for-one-of-manhattans-most-dangerous-intersections/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/08/realestate/a-conversion-plan-roils-the-ansonia.html?smid=pl-share, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://forgotten-ny.com/2010/11/amsterdammin-from-west-72nd-110th/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.beacontheatre.com/about/history.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20B10FD345B11738DDDA80A94DC405B888DF1D3, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.symphonyspace.org/history, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://nysparks.com/historic-sites/37/details.aspx, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/pwwmh/ny22.htm, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=10711, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.sleepyhollowcemetery.org/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/q-a-todays-giants-ticker-tape-parade/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/nyregion/11bloomberg.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
Added archive url for http://web.mta.info/nyct/maps/manbus.pdf, (see diff when it was first added in article)

--Tim 1357 ^talk|poke 14:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim1357: mta.info and nytimes.com are not dead links. I don't know if archive is needed for these links, particularly since they aren't going to go dead anytime soon. epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadway (Manhattan). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broadway (Manhattan). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ny1.com/6-bronx-news-content/features/4215/february-14th-in-nyc-history
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214014236/http://www.beacontheatre.com/about/history.html to http://www.beacontheatre.com/about/history.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadway (Manhattan). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219184842/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=10711 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=10711

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 June 2018

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway (Manhattan) → Broadway (Manhattan–Westchester) – Four years ago in January 2014, there was a Request for Comment about what the best name for this article could be. It was in response to my failed move request that month. This article was originally called Broadway (New York City), but there are several streets named Broadway in New York City (actually in all five boroughs). The consensus was "move to Broadway (Manhattan)".

However, the current title is inadequate because this street also passes through the Bronx and Westchester County. Only the southern half of Broadway (the subject of this article) is in Manhattan; the street itself has its northern terminus in Westchester. There was one option that was never discussed: having the two termini of the street in the article name, separated by an en dash. It's based off a WP:USSH policy where ambiguous multi-state interstates use only the terminal state names, separated by an en dash. Although this isn't an Interstate highway, it concurs with U.S. Route 9 in New York.

In any case, I'm suggesting either Broadway (Manhattan–Westchester) or Broadway (Westchester–Manhattan). This naming is per WP:PRECISE: Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that - this shows that the scope is not only about the street in Manhattan, but also its continuation to Westchester, without making the title unnecessarily long by placing "Bronx" in the name.

epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think the current title is fine, as there is really no confusion with the current title over which Broadway the article is about. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the disambiguator is not confusing. It's factually incorrect because this Broadway is not only in Manhattan, but also stretches through the Bronx and Westchester. epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Disambiguators are simply shorthand ways of distinguishing between subjects, intended to help our readers. They are not detailed descriptions of the subject matter, which takes place in the article itself. Broadway (Westchester County), Broadway (Bronx) and Broadway (The Bronx) all redirect to Broadway (Manhattan), and the opening sentence of the article specifies that Broadway runs through Manhattan, the Bronx and parts of Westchester. This is sufficient. Further, the previous RfC was exhaustive in dealing with multiple possibilities for the article's title, and there really was no overwhelming need to re-open the subject. I suggest that the RfC be withdrawn by the initiator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note: this is an RM (requested move), not an RFC. As to your suggestion, I'm keeping this requested move up for seven days just to gauge if there will be further comments. epicgenius (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a RfC about an article's title and an RM about moving an article (i.e. changing its title), that's kinda a distinction without a difference, innit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And what's your point? epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That your comment that
"this is an RM (requested move), not an RFC"
was rather pointless, since the RfC sought to do exactly what an RM would do. Or did you have a purpose that I am too dense to understand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the closing statement for that RfC said:
Of the options presented, Broadway (Manhattan) seems to have easily the most support as the article title.
There were nine options presented. I see absolutely no reason for this RM given the exhaustiveness of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that I should create a more exhaustive RFC? The currently proposed title wasn't part of the nine options you suggested. I'll count them. There were three compound suggestions: Broadway (Manhattan and the Bronx), Broadway (Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester), and Broadway (New York City and Westchester). And there were five other renaming options with single disambiguators of SE NY/Manhattan/NYC/NY/no disambiguator at all. The ninth option isn't even a new name, it's simply a suggestion to split the article. In none of these versions was a title with any dashes even suggested. That's why I'm suggesting it now, because by all means naming the termini of the street is pretty precise, I'd think. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that opening this RM was unnecessary, and you should withdraw it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Westchester" is an incorrect endpoint for this disambiguator in any event; "Broadway" exists as the name for Route 9 as far north as (in my experience) Red Hook. However, this name is, unlike Yonge Street, not continuous, so an article built around that would make no sense. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Broadway (New York). Not only is this the most factually correct since Broadway passes through at least 3 counties of New York State, only two of which are in New York City, but more importantly, "New York" is by far the most recognizable way to disambiguate the Broadway that most people are looking for, on a worldwide basis. Not everyone who wants information about Broadway will necessarily know in advance that Manhattan is part of New York, but they will know Broadway is in New York. It's true there are other Broadways in other parts of New York, but their notability pales in comparison to the world-famous thoroughfare, and can be easily handled with the hatnote already on this article. Station1 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is simply not accurate, as there are unrelated Broadways in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and on Roosevelt Island. There are most probably other Broadways elsewhere in New York State that are not related to this Broadway. All of these can be described as "Broadway (New York)". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed that in the last sentence of my comment. Station1 (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the notability of other Broadways in New York, I have to agree with BMK. Having said that, if you look along US 9 north of Westchester County, you'll see plenty of other segments that are named "Broadway," even though like in NYC, US 9 leaves Broadway in Saratoga Springs. Then again, you'll also find segments of Albany Post Road that aren't part of US 9 as well. For the record, I'm okay with a rename, but I'm not sure the current suggestion would be the right one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The current title, Broadway (Manhattan), conforms with WP:TITLE: it's "short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable". Using "(Manhattan–Westchester)" as disambiguator fails WP:DESCRIPDIS: "use only as much additional detail as necessary" (WP:CONCISE). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this falls under WP:PARENDIS, not WP:DESCRIPDIS since the title being suggested uses a parenthetical disambiguator. In any case the current title is incorrect, it talks about Broadway in the Bronx and Westchester. Thus it fails WP:PRECISE, as I just added in my nomination rationale above. epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Broadway is primarily known as being in Manhattan, hence the term Broadway theatre. CookieMonster755 ✉ 02:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What did the Dutch call it?

The name Broadway is the English-language literal translation of the Dutch name, Brede weg.[1][2]

It does not look as if the Dutch called it Brede weg in fact; this may be a much later reverse-translation back into Dutch from the English name.

See the useful and well-researched blog by Michael Lorenzini, the NYC archivist. The Dutch road was apparently called Heeren Wegh: the "Gentlemen's Street".

I'll see if I can do a proper change to the article.

Thomas Peardew (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some adjustments and added some sources, shifting the "Brede weg" derivation to a footnote.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond my Ken: I see you had second thoughts about this

:Your direct change of the text is unwarranted, given that the Times article is from 1893 and based on newly discovered city records at the time. When there is an alternate theory, we present both. I've change your edits to reflect that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the post-1893 source is the NYC archives, with substantial documentation, I'd prefer it myself to a 19th Century newspaper source (and one which is now only available to me behind a paywall: perhaps you could paraphrase the relevant passage?). One of Lorenzini's comments in his posts - which I urge you to read in full - is this: Many English maps of New Amsterdam hardly rise to the level of tourist maps, sort of "Ye Old Town of New Amsterdam," and they sometimes take current English names and try to convert them back to Dutch. The context here is the similar tales about "Wall Street" from about the same time as the NYT article that you cite. Thomas Peardew (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the snotty tone of the above: I was commenting on your previous revisions, and I see you have been very active today. I like the article now! Thomas Peardew (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I changed my opinion after doing some more research. Usually, it's best if there are competing claims from equally reliable sources to mention both claims - which was my initial position -- but when the number of sources mounts up on one side, then I think it's valid to go with the claim that's best supported. I didn't want to lose the original claim, however, which is why I chose to move it to a footnote.

I'm still doing some looking around in my library for other sources, and have been tinkering with the language to make things as clear as possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope

An RM five years ago rejected the idea of moving this article to a title that reflects the fact that Broadway goes into the Bronx and Westchester. Looking at this article again, I think we should pare back this article so it only talks about the portion of Broadway in Manhattan, as one may normally assumed from the title. (Specifically, I'm looking to delete the Broadway (Manhattan)#Westchester County subsection and rewrite the lead to talk only about the 13-mile section of Broadway in Manhattan,)

The info about the Bronx and Westchester portions of Broadway can be adequately covered in the article U.S. Route 9 in New York, as Broadway is signed as US 9 for its entire length north of 179th Street in Manhattan. There is a lot more that can be added about Broadway within Manhattan itself, and I think we should refocus this article to be about the section of Broadway south of the Manhattan/Bronx border. I think the Bronx and Westchester sections are entirely duplicative of the US 9 (NY) article and that the article should really focus on the extensive history and culture related to the Manhattan section of Broadway. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]