Talk:New Amsterdam Theatre

Untitled

Is this the place the Counting Crows talk about in the song Mr. Jones? Rogerthat ^Talk 13:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No sir. Thought the same thing in a Reference Desk answer today. That New Amsterdam is now called the International Sports Club, in San Francisco. Took me longer than it should to figure it out. I hope you're still not wondering eight years later, but this may save someone else the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

BMK (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you point to a justification for your change please? According to WP:APPENDIX, I had it right. Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in cluttering up the bottom of the page with innnumerable sections, they start to overwhelm the body of the article. BMK (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but it's contrary to WP:APPENDIX, and you can't point to anything; why should your personal taste prevail? Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:APPENDIX is a guideline and not policy. It is not mandatory. Let it be, please. BMK (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not policy, and not mandatory. You let it be, please. Vzeebjtf (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, since I'm invoking WP:IAR, which is policy. Unless you can get a consensus of editor here to agree with you, don't change it back. BMK (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS is consensus, your preference is not; nor is it "improvement". Vzeebjtf (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My sincere thanks for reminding me how really unpleasant it is to deal with you. It recalls to mind the great deal of help I gave you on various articles when you first arrived at Wikipedia, despite which you eventually shat on me, and denied to others the assistance I had rendered you. You're a good researcher, you do find some really good images, and good information, but as a collaborator, you're complete and total shit. I suggest that either you find another place than Wikipedia as an outlet for your research, or else simply find and upload the information and images, and allow others more able to cope with real-life people to deal with them, since you obviously don't have that capability. BMK (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, if you're adding "further reading" to the article, why aren't you improving the article with the information in that further reading? We're an encyclopedia, you may have heard, and not primarily a source for reading material. BMK (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What's not really a matter for this talk page is your shocking and unacceptable incivility , personal attack, and language. I "shat" on you only in your vivid imagination, and who are these others to whom I "denied" the "assistance" you had rendered me? (It doesn't count as "assistance" when you summarily and rudely change my work without bothering to give any explanation.) The notion that you are "able to cope" with real-life people had me rolling on the floor! I expect a prompt apology for your outrageous outburst. Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, why isn't the "External links" section also "clutter"? Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In a way, it is, but there are distinct policy standards for what can go there which are different than the policy standards for references, so having a separate section for it makes sense.

BTW, please read WP:IAR. BMK (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read it; thank you for pointing it out. I don't agree with your interpretation, which seems to be: BMK's esthetic preference trumps everything else. After all, esthetic preferences are like noses; everybody has one. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2014 (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) 05:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

New Amsterdam Theatre

• ... that the facade of the New Amsterdam Theatre was erected overnight during a dispute over the ornamentation? Source: "Klaw & Erlanger's Ruse: Steal a March on the Building Department and Put Up New Theatre Front at Night". The New York Times. March 13, 1903. p. 2
  • ALT1:... that at the time of its construction in 1903, the New Amsterdam Theatre contained the largest piece of steel ever used in a building? Source: Bloom, Ken (2013). Routledge Guide to Broadway. Taylor & Francis. p. 187.
  • ALT2:... that the New Amsterdam Theatre, which once played Mother Goose and Humpty Dumpty alongside Shakespeare, later played Disney musicals? Source: Margolies, John (June 1997). "A Spectacular Broadway Revival, the New Amsterdam Theater Glows on 42nd Street Once Again" (PDF) Architectural Record. 185: 113.
  • ALT3:... that the New Amsterdam Theatre, once described as "a vision of gorgeousness", later had dead cats in the basement and mushrooms growing through the floor? Source: Gray, Christopher (February 10, 1991). "Streetscapes: The New Amsterdam Theater; A Landmark Mired In Bureaucracy". The New York Times; Pulley, Brett (July 29, 1995). "Disney's Deal: A special report.; A Mix of Glamour and Hardball Won Disney a Piece of 42d Street". The New York Times.
  • ALT4:... that the New Amsterdam Theatre has historically hosted Ziegfeld Follies, comedic musicals, kung-fu movies, and now Disney productions? Source: Multiple in article

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KMXO
• Comment: more hooks later

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - Just waiting on this.
Overall: Good to go once there's a QPQ. From the current set, I'm liking ALT0 the most, followed by ALT4 and ALT3 (dead cats and mushrooms are quite the combo). The others don't quite catch my eye. SounderBruce 06:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• @SounderBruce: Thanks for the review. I've now done a QPQ. Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good to go, then. SounderBruce 19:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ALT3 to T:DYK/P4 without image

FYI

• Brooks of Sheffield (September 13, 2011). "Ziegfeld's Rooftop Garden Not Completely Gone". Lost New York City. blogspot. Retrieved 18 April 2023.
• <ref name="lostnewyorkcity/ziegfelds-rooftop">{{cite web |author1=Brooks of Sheffield |title=Ziegfeld's Rooftop Garden Not Completely Gone |url=https://lostnewyorkcity.blogspot.com/2011/09/ziegfelds-rooftop-garden-not-completely.html |website=Lost New York City |publisher=blogspot |access-date=18 April 2023 |date=September 13, 2011}}</ref>
• ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That is an interesting link; thanks for posting it. While we can't use it as a source, the article does mention that the physical space occupied by the roof theater has been converted to offices. I haven't seen these images before.

On an unrelated note, I should probably look through this book and this magazine to see if I can extract any images from there. These sources also don't have anything that's not already covered in the article, but these might still prove interesting to someone. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)