Talk:Wallack's Theatre

Before 1904

I've got a cite saying Wallack's Theatre existed in the 1880s. Actor and butterfly collector Henry Edwards (entomologist) appeared on that stage, and wrote a book in 1882–83, A Mingled Yarn, with the theater's name on the Preface page, as the author's address. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, there was a "Wallack's" as far back as 1857, at least, but perhaps it was a different location. This article needs updating.--Milowent (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wallack's Theater of 1860 placed an advertisement in the 'New-York Daily Tribune' on 25th. December for a production called 'FAST MEN of THE OLDEN TIME'. The press page also features advertisements for establishments noted in Wikipedia, including 'Laura Keene 's Theater' and 'Barnum's American Museum '.. Unfortunately, no address was printed but that may be a good clue in assuming everyone of the day knew the venue due to its popularity. The page can be viewed here: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1860-12-25/ed-1/seq-1/ .. This source of information, I find delightful, as I'm sure others would agree...MZionC (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be the Wallack's Theatre at 485 Broadway, managed by James W. Wallack from 1852 09 08 to 1861 04 29, and also known as Wallack's Lyceum. From 1861 05 22, the house was no longer Wallack's Theatre, but had a succession of various names. See Brown, Thomas Allston [A History of the New York Stage, Vol. 1. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1903, pp. 472-523 for an encyclopedic history of this theatre under all its different names.Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC) The theatre's address is given by Jenkins, Stephen The Greatest Street in the World. G.P.Putnam’s Sons, New York and London, 1911.Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Theatre identity

Studio 54 is a different theatre, located at 254 W. 54th St. The section called "Renovation," a duplication of the section "Roundabout Theatre at Studio 54," from the article "Studio 54," should be deleted, along with the parenthetical mention in the first line of the article.Vzeebjtf (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The illustration is of the 13th Street Wallack's Theatre, later called Star Theatre, as can be seen by comparing it to the wonderful short film referenced in the "History" section. The caption should say, "Wallack's Theatre (later Star Theatre) at 13th Street and Broadway."Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should begin with, "Four theatres in New York City have borne the name Wallack's Theatre." The first was at 485 Broadway, the theatre managed by James W. Wallack named Wallack's Lyceum, but also known as Wallack's Theatre.Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Vzeebjtf (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That is one solution, and I think it should be implemented. The other solution is to create articles for each of the theaters known as Wallack's. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Under "Anco", the sentence

Some years later, in the late 1980’s, the theatre was completely to its brick foundation with the intention of using it for retail purposes.

is missing a word.Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The 13th Street theatre was designed by McElfatrick, but I can't find a source right now.Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Thomas R. Jackson was the architect (Brown, v.2, p. 245).Vzeebjtf (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Class

Perhaps the class of this article should be changed? Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Present occupants of the sites

I agree that it's a good idea to give the present occupants of the sites. I've changed your addition to the 485 section to a footnote in the caption of the image, eliminating the reference to the name of a particular retail store, which is not really relevant; the present building is already described in a footnote. I've expanded your addition to the 844 section, providing a link, and the same for the 30th Street section. Of course, users can easily check Google's Street View for the current appearances, including the particular retail stores. I hope you agree with these changes. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Quotations

The use of quotations in this article seems out of keeping with WP:MOSQUOTE and the linked guidance. Quotations should not form the bulk of our encyclopedia articles, but instead should be used as support material. Frequently, content in quotations should be properly paraphrased, with striking passages singled out, in preference to long block quotations.

Beyond that, we are required by policy to accurately reproduce quotations. We cannot abridge them without noting precisely where and how they are abridged. This is done through the use of ellipses.

While this article seems to be shaping up nicely, this work will both improve the readability of the content and bring the material in line with our house style. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the policy violations have been corrected. All ellipses have been restored and long quotes have been eliminated or reduced. Remaining quotes are from contemporary sources, or Brown, who has attended the theaters and many of the performances he writes about. I believe those quotes enhance the reader's experience. Vzeebjtf (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

List-defined refs

…are now alphabetized. Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Article progress

Lots of good progress on this article since I saw it last. Congratulations to Vzeebjtf and others who have been working on the article. But I don't think we are permitted to instruct our readers in the footnote to do a boolean search, can we? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are familiar with the Fulton site; it has a great collection of newspapers from New York State, but it isn't user-friendly. In particular, the links are not permanent. So the only way you can cite a file is by suggesting a search string that will uniquely bring it up. This is awkward, I agree. Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the compliment; I appreciate it. Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I edited the Boolean footnote; let me know if you like it better. Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Boolean footnote

I edited footnote #4 (review of opening of Brougham's Lyceum). I think it's an improvement. Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No objections, so proposal adopted. Vzeebjtf (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

---

I tagged the section on the 42nd Street location for splitting. It's easily large enough to stand on its own. I suggest that article use the Anco name for both natural disambiguation and long-term significance reasons. Of its 84 years as a theatre and cinema, and 90 years as an actively occupied building (it was vacant for the last few years as the redevelopment was imminent), it was known as the Anco for the outright majority of its existence (48 years total).

The Wallack's name was neither the original nor longest-existing name for the building; it was not a particularly significant name for the place. The theatre also had nothing to do with Wallack the man, it just reused an established name for recognition. It just happened to be the last name used when it was a live theatre venue. Frankly, using it betrays a bias that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Just because Lost Broadway Theatres lists it under that name doesn't make it more correct.

Regardless of which title is used for the 42nd street location, the article definitely needs to be split because these buildings are entirely separate entities with zero relation to each other. The first three were all at least run by a Wallack, but they're still separate buildings that had extensive non-Wallack history. The fourth one is entirely separate. It's utterly problematic and incorrect to lump them together just because of their using the same name at different points in time. This isn't the only Broadway venue article to make that mistake. Fixing it should begin here. oknazevad (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Oknazevad, you beat me to the punch. I was actually going to start writing a separate article on the Anco Cinema/Lew Fields Theatre this week, as it's the only former Broadway theater on that block of 42nd Street without a standalone article. However, it seems like the Anco/Lew Fields Theatre is already described in some detail here. I agree that the Anco/Lew Fields shouldn't share an article with the other Wallack's Theatres merely because it shared a name with the other theaters at one point. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering your excellent work recently on Broadway theatre articles, I'll leave it to you, then. oknazevad (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (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.