Talk:Bijou Theatre (Manhattan, 1917)

Name of article

I would suggest renaming this article Bijou Theatre (Manhattan) and changing the item on the disambiguation page Bijou from Bijou Theatre (New York) to Bijou Theatre (Manhattan). There are and have been many Bijou Theatres, including a prominent one in Brooklyn, later called Loew's Bijou Theatre. It would require changing the existing redirect at Bijou Theatre (New York) to Bijou Theatre (Manhattan). Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Vzeebjtf (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential split

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.

---

I propose splitting this page into 2 articles. I'm not sure of the exact proposed titles just yet, but Bijou Theatre (Manhattan, 1878) and Bijou Theatre (Manhattan, 1917) could work based on the theaters' opening dates, similar to Lyric Theatre (New York City, 1998) and Lyric Theatre (New York City, 1903). Star Mississippi brought up this possibility last October, but I'm opening this for formal discussion. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks Epicgenius for starting this conversation. My gut on why they're one is that there is some confusion around the end of the first theatre and beginning of the second theatre, or rather the Theatre Brighton and the first Bijou Theatre and people weren't sure how or where to split. That was certainly a road block I hit when trying to pair the sources with their material. I would definitely be in favor of some form of split as right now it's confusing to the reader and editors. Star Mississippi 20:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Any of these joint articles should be split when we can. It is typical that these articles started as an article on one theatre and then grew over time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• They should be split. They were two entirely different theatres, existing at different times in different locations under different ownership, that had only the name in common. Keeping them together implies a connection between them that never existed and therefore can only confuse readers and editors. —8.9.89.72 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

These should absolutely be split. Have at it! oknazevad (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• I also agree that the article should be split, with the redlink article names proposed at the start of this discussion. — WFinch (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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.