Talk:Mark Hellinger Theatre

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

I am revising this article. Please be patient. This is a work in progress.[edit]

I am revising this article. Please be patient. This is a work in progress as I have time.

Thanks. JGKlein (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about merging with Times Square Church? If not, I would suggest that the church article be solely about the institution and all info and history about the building be in the Hellinger article, to avoid duplication. But a merge would probably be best. Just a thought. Best, Markhh (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my thinking that, as you suggest, the Times Square Church article should be (and largely is) about the church entity (as in ministry/congregation, etc.) that was founded in 1987 and why and where, etc., and include pertinent information about their purchase of the church building and their dedication to preserving its architectural integrity and historical landmark appearance and status.
This Mark Hellinger Theatre article would ideally eventually include as its primary photo one taken during its operation as a theatre (at such time as one constituting fair use can be found), and would include the photo currently so used further down in the article in the section about its current use. It is not particularly relevant or notable to the church to note each and every detail of its theatrical history.
Meanwhile, it's not relevant to the story of the theatre to note where and by whom the church was previously established and all of their congregational works. In other words, the church article should be about the denomination, with some info about the structure where they are based, not about the church building with some info about the congregation/founding/pastoral care. As such, I don't see a redundancy conflict or a reason to merge.
Consider, for example, the fact that an actor who appears in a film may have their appearance therein discussed in both their personal bio and in an article about the film, both articles including many if not all of the same details, without being redundant, as the details would be relevant to both while the focus of the two articles are not concentric circles but rather circles which overlap on this point but otherwise focus on different material. A ministry based in a notable piece of architecture, particularly when that location has a unique history, would not exclude some detail (as it does) simply because this detail is more thoroughly covered elsewhere. Abrazame (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they should remain separate articles. Markhh, you have a valid point that there is a some duplication in the articles. I would be agreeable to trimming some of that. I have such an interest in the theatre that perhaps I was a little too overzealous in my rewriting of the articles. Feel free to condense some of the duplicate information. That won't hurt my feelings. Or, if I have time, I will do it.
Thanks so much for your input. I welcome it. JGKlein (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - In both articles, I emphasized that the Times Square Church is maintaining the theatre in its original state. A lot of people seem to be worried that an architectural landmark will be altered. I wrote some sentences in both articles to ease those anxieties. Perhaps in the future, when economic times are better, the building will be converted back to a Broadway theatre. JGKlein (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can we go about getting more photos of this theatre, particularly the interior?[edit]

Abrazame raises an excellent point about photos for this article. It would be better to have a photo of the theatre marquee taken while it was still a legitimate Broadway theatre. A photo of the exterior while My Fair Lady was playing would be ideal.

Also, the interior architecture is absolutely breathtaking. It looks like a palace. Take a look at the photos at IBDB: http://www.ibdb.com/venueimages.php?id=1202

How do we go about getting legal rights to publish any of these photos? Throughout the article, I put links to these photos as I discussed the interior design, but it would be nice if some could be integrated into the article. JGKlein (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Perhaps if we contacted the Times Square Church, they could provide us with some color interior photos? The architecture is too beautiful not to be seen. JGKlein (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some spectacular photos of the interior spaces of the theatre at http://www.sarahbsadventures.com/2010/03/mark-hellinger-theatre.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderider (talk • contribs) 04:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I'm curious about the name. The New York Times seems to spell Theater with an "er" at the end when referring to it, and the ghits are 6-to-1 that way: 140K to 23K in favor of "er". Anybody have anything more on this? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're "curious" about the name, are you? Or is it you're looking for more evidence that the "Theatre District" should be called the "Theater Distrct"? (You're so transparent.) Well, the theatre has been sold, and is now the Times Square Church, but as you can see from this on the Internet Broadway Database -- which is a project of The Broadway League, the organization which represents the owners of Broadway theatres and the producer of Broadway shows - the name of the theatre before it was sold was the Mark Hellinger Theatre. (Try again, Epeefleche, this one is a bust, showing once again that you really don't know anything about this subject.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, the names of the theaters don't determine the name of the district. That's a step removed. And the theater owners don't name the district. And even the name that an entity calls itself doesn't determine what wikipedia calls it. See wp:commonname: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title." It appears from what I've seen so far that the more common name used by reliable sources is -er. But I'm interested in what others have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever spelling the owners use when they name a building becomes part of its proper name. What spelling is used in general usage depends on custom and location. In the US it is most often -er and in the UK -re. "The Mark Hellinger Theatre is one of the largest theaters on Broadway." Since the English language Wikipedia is a vast entity including users of both American and British English usage, it needs to remain flexible regarding such spelling variants and use the one most suited to the custom of the subject at hand. While the -er spelling is the more standard one in the US, the -re spelling is still more common in the names of playhouses and also in general use among many people in the theatrical industry. In Britain the -re ending is nearly universal. Wikipedia writers and editors must remain flexible about this, as in so many things. This is not a matter on which Wikipedia can be dogmatic. There's no reason why Wikipedia should have to follow the editorial policy of one publication, i.e. the New York Times, in all matters of usage and spelling. And in fact, it doesn't. Markhh (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Hellinger 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) 09:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Times Square Church at the Mark Hellinger Theatre
The Times Square Church at the Mark Hellinger Theatre

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reviewing... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanded from 5789 B to 30 kb of prose, a 5x expansion. As usual, amply well cited and to reliable sources, well written, free from copyvio. A qpq has been conducted. Hooks interesting, verified and mentioned in article. ALTs 3 and 4 are less interesting, to me, but any of the above look GTG. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 to T:DYK/P5

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Hellinger_Theatre&oldid=1207942487"