Talk:John Golden Theatre

Capacity

The article cites 800; the infobox 804. Which? Harfarhs (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Golden 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060315062935/http://www.playbill.com/reference/theatre_info/seating/2178.html to http://www.playbill.com/reference/theatre_info/seating/2178.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) 20:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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) 01:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Majestic Theatre (Broadway)
• Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre
• John Golden Theatre

)

• ... that the Majestic Theatre, Royale Theatre, and Theatre Masque were all designed with a single balcony because its developer, Irwin Chanin, thought a second balcony was distant? Source: Multiple in articles, but see for example Majestic Theater Interior (PDF) (Report). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. December 8, 1987. p. 16.
  • ALT1: ... that the Chanin brothers developed the Majestic Theatre, Royale Theatre, and Theatre Masque in 1927 before giving them up just three years later? Source: Stern, Robert A. M.; Gilmartin, Patrick; Mellins, Thomas (1987). New York 1930: Architecture and Urbanism Between the Two World Wars. New York: Rizzoli. p. 231
  • ALT2: ... that the Chanin brothers moved the Broadway theater district westward when they developed the Majestic Theatre, Royale Theatre, and Theatre Masque? Source: "Theatrical Trend Moving Westward; Active Development Predicted Between Eighth and Ninth Avenues in Near Future. Opera House Influence Many Apartment and Amusement Operations Under Way in Blocks West of Broadway".
  • ALT1M: ... that the Majestic Theatre, designed for "revues and light operas", has hosted the same musical for the past three decades? Source: Andrew Lloyd Webber Brings the Music of the Night Back to ‘Phantom’
  • ALT2M: ... that since 1988, the Majestic Theatre has hosted the musical The Phantom of the Opera, the longest-running Broadway show? Source: Andrew Lloyd Webber Brings the Music of the Night Back to ‘Phantom’
  • ALT1B: ... that the Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre was known as the John Golden Theatre before the John Golden Theatre was? Source: Bloom, Ken (2007). The Routledge Guide to Broadway.

• Reviewed: Food labeling in Mexico/Samuel Kneeland (printer)/Ememem
• Comment: Note that ALT1M/ALT2M are singular hooks with Majestic Theatre only, and ALT1B is a double hook with Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre and John Golden Theatre only. If so desired, ALT1M/ALT2M could run separately from ALT1B, hence two hooks. I will come up with more hooks later.

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 20:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC).

• Verified all three articles 5X recently expanded. The hook is stated in all three articles, attributed to the same source which does state the same fact. I think the hook is interesting, but adding "traditional" highlights the fact that this was different than the way it was usually done prior.

• ALT0A: ... that the Majestic Theatre, Royale Theatre, and Theatre Masque were all designed with a single balcony because its developer, Irwin Chanin, thought a traditional second balcony was distant?

Epicgenius, if you are OK with ALT0A, this will be good (with the needed QPQs). Note: when I tried to download/view the NYC Landmark Preservation Commission PDF that supports the hook, I got a "potential security risk" notice from Firefox. Had no problem with Chrome where I have it set to view PDFs in the browser. MB 05:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Thanks for the review. I've done the three required QPQs now. I'm fine with ALT0A, but if you think any of the combo hooks are contrived, I can split it up into two or maybe three hooks (the combination hooks are slightly interesting in my opinion, but they can be better). Weird thing about the sourcing, though, as the LPC documents work fine for me; it could just be the security certificate. Epicgenius (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Epicgenius, Last time I reviewed one of yours, I picked the last hook and you said you listed them in order of your preference. This time, I went with your first hook. As far as the other hooks, I don't like ALT1 that much. ALT2 is interesting. I like ALT1M and ALT1B too, so if you would rather have two or three hooks, we can do that also. You did all the work in the articles, so it's up to you. For now, with three QPQs, ALT0A is good to go. MB 04:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Thanks, I appreciate it. It is true that I listed them in the order of my preference; however, these are just my preferences, and I don't mind if you feel that other hooks are better. In this case, my preference would be the combo of ALT1M and ALT1B, followed by ALT0A and ALT2. Epicgenius (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

for further review of alt hooks. Will try to get to this in the next day or two. MB 05:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT1M - the first part of the hook ("revues and light operas") is in the article with ref (and in source - NYC landmark preservation document). The second part of the hook (hosted the same musical for the last three decades) is not explicitly stated in the article, but the entire last section details the opening in 1987 and continuation through 2021 (with a break for COVID of course). Accepting ALT1M for the Majestic.

ALT1B is not explicitly stated in the articles per se; The fact that the Jacobs was called the Golden (in 1934-1936) is stated in the Jacobs article. The Golden article states it was renamed to the Golden in 1937 (which is still the name). So both parts of the hook can be found in the articles with appropriate references. Due to not having accesses to the sources, accepting on good faith that the sources concur.

Epicgenius, I am ready to approve ALT1M and ALT1B. Since they are independent hooks for one and two articles respectively, that will be handled separately, it's probably best if you withdraw this and replace it with two nominations to avoid any confusion. I'll approve both immediately based on the reviewing I've done here. MB 02:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Thanks again for another review. Would it be feasible to approve both hooks here instead? There's precedent for multiple hooks being approved in one nom, e.g. Rattlesnake Creek (Bronx). Additionally, I would rather avoid the weird situation of having a nomination named Template:Did you know nominations/Majestic Theatre (Broadway) 2, as well as opening a "new" nomination for these pages even if it's technically approved already. Since these are all also recent GA's, they're still eligible, but opening new noms to replace this one might be strange. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought having two independent hooks in one nom would be "stranger", and of course they would still be eligible because this would have been a "procedural reopening". But OK.

for ALT1M and for ALT1B.

• Note to promoter: This template should remain open until both hooks are promoted. MB 14:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT1M to T:DYK/P6

ALT1B to T:DYK/P7