Talk:Off-off-Broadway

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Equity Showcase is not necessarily obvious

A paragraph starts with

An Off-Off-Broadway production that features members of Actors Equity is, of necessity, called an Equity Showcase production

I think this takes a little bit for granted from the reader, especially without links to Actors Equity or Equity Showcase, but I also feel I don't know the subject well enough to make the edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiffman (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indie theater

Is the statement about "indie theater" relevant? Indie theater (What's that?) Kirk Bromley (Who is that?) 96.246.162.192 (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of theaters

Saying "notable" is POV. Saying "partial list" is NPOV. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored "Notable" which is common in headings on Wikipedia, please see WP:NOTABLE and WP:NPOV. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Off-Off-Broadway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

The name of the article refers to the Off-Off-Broadway movement and genre, not just to the theatre buildings. See also the Talk page at Off-Broadway. Also, the sources use initial caps for "Off-Off": See this, this, this and this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Off-Off-Broadway. 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) 22:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. In running text, the only capital letter should be the "B". (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Off-Broadway → Off-off-Broadway – WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Sources do not consistently capitalize this, and it is not a proper name but a descriptive phrase. It should not be capitalized in the sense of a theatrical genre, per MOS:GENRE, nor in the sense of a theatrical production movement, per MOS:DOCTCAPS. WP doesn't even capitalize the civil rights movement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – looks right. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – a descriptive phrase, not a proper noun or title. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per rationale in nom, and ngrams. Colin M (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The rationale makes sense, but it just looks wrong to me. That's not a useful reason for opposition, I know. So, I did go searching for its usage in other manuals of style. At least one MOS capitalizes "Off" and "Off Off" when they are used as an adjective or a noun, but uses the lower case "off" and "off Off" when used as an adverb. [1] Apparently, in combination with an absence of hyphens, this is the usage which the New York Times eventually settled on.[2] Granted, the NYT MOS is not our MOS, but I wonder if there's an exception in this case for common usage. Interesting that the ngrams appear to show something different. I haven't used this tool before, but if you take out the hyphens, it appears as though the usage inverts. [3] If I'm doing it wrong, please feel free to let me know. Whatever we decide is fine, I'm just advocating for what seems best to me. It could be that I have just read the New York Times too often. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (séance) 15:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
@GentlemanGhost: Just a post-RM FYI – The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage is aberrant, on many things, even compared to other news stylesheets (and WP is not written in any kind of news style, as a matter of policy). NYT does all sorts of odd things that even other newspapers don't do (though, curiously, the unrelated magazine The New Yorker also has some of the same quirks). It's part of their branding/marketing strategy, to stand out as different, and the bulk of it consists of doing old-fashioned things, and of doing things that niche writers prefer within particular specialties (what we call the WP:SSF around these parts). So, it's just not very indicative of anything. PS: Every use of capitalization where one would prefer lower case, or vice versa, every hyphen someone else would use (or avoid) when one would do the opposite, and so on, "just looks wrong" to a particular individual (or at least one who doesn't wallow in style guides and all their conflicting "rules" and advice – that's a habit that tends to break the rigidity of one's expectations and reduce any element of surprise). We can't use that as a basis for anything, since there is not a single line-item in our MoS or any other style guide that doesn't trigger this emotional reaction in someone somewhere. We just have to do what the majority of book-publishing-oriented and academic/formal-leaning style guides average toward, modulo any WP-specific concerns like technical and accuracy needs or international comprehensibility and commonality matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Thank you for your thorough response. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some resistance to this change, but it won't come from me. The explanation makes sense. It's good to talk through it. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (séance) 06:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. I've let this sit for a while to see whether there would be some intense reaction to it, some flood of counter-sourcing I was ignorant of, etc., rather than just rushing to go change the spelling to "off-off-Broadway" and "off-Broadway" in articles. I'm mindful that the real world sometimes creates unusual exceptions (which WP will adopt); e.g. The Hague is virtually never written without The, including capitalization of the T, but this wouldn't be an expected result if one didn't research the question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. I had taken a cursory glance at the WikiProject Theatre to see if there was any strong sentiment there, but it didn't appear so. In the interim, I'm glad you got to see the latest Terminator film. I have no idea what I did in the meantime. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 08:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where’s the list of off-off-broadway theatres?

Anyone start one? Both the Broadway and Off Broadway pages have lists of the theaters under the category. Mistamystery (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that such a list would be either practicable or useful. There are thousands (or tens of thousands?) of small theatre venues in New York City, or spaces used regularly or occasionally for theatre performances, and these are regularly converted to and from other uses. It is hard enough to make a list of off-Broadway theatres. Do you see any WP:RSs that attempt to give anything like a comprehensive list? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Off-off-Broadway"