# Talk:New Victory Theater

Note: The IBDB entry mis-spells the name of the theater.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it was the third, after the American Theatre at 260-2, which opened May 22, 1893, and Hammerstein's Victoria at 201-5, which opened March 2, 1899.
Sources:

Henderson, Mary C.; Greene, Alexis. The Story of 42nd Street (New York: Back Stage Books, 2008), pp. 37 and 51.
The New York Times:
"The New American Theatre" 1893-04-30;
"A Splendid New Playhouse" 1893-05-23;
"Hammerstein's Victoria" 1899-03-03.
Vzeebjtf (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Victory Theater. 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/20120402132338/http://www.new42.org/new42/new42_victory.html to http://www.new42.org/new42/new42_victory.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 10:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

One editor has recently added the template {{Overly detailed}}, which says, in full, This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. I strongly disagree that this article has too much detail, as it seems appropriate for the subject's history (which covers many changes over a 120-year span). The article actually summarizes a lot of detail - e.g. it does not mention every little production that has taken place at the theater, either when it operated as a Broadway theater, or in its current incarnation as a children's theater. There are a few anecdotes about the theater's burlesque years, but I fail to see how that falls under intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.
I reverted the addition of this template, with the summary "The amount of detail in this article is sufficient." WP:TMC says: Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in some templates) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. I see neither a discussion on the talk page nor a "reason" parameter in the template.
I was reverted with the summary "*more* than sufficient, thus the template". This still does not justify the addition of the template. Just because an article has a lot of detail does not mean that it is intricate detail. As I said above, there was no attempt to discuss the issues, and it seems to have been a drive-by edit. WP:WTRMT says: Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently and that they may be removed If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error [...] if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page. Not only did the tag not explain the issue, but it was re-inserted in the article without sufficient justification. Unless there is consensus that this tag is justified and that there is an "excessive amount of intricate detail" that cannot be remedied by a discussion, it should not be re-inserted, especially when it has already been reverted twice. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is an example of excessive detail which should be seriously reduced: "After Oscar Hammerstein had died in 1921, his widow Emma Swift Hammerstein tried to collect rent from the Republic Theatre but could not do so because of an injunction.[132] Oscar's son Arthur Hammerstein and two of Arthur's sisters subsequently sued Emma, their stepmother, for control of the Republic Theatre and Manhattan Opera House.[133] A judge subsequently determined that the theater had belonged to Arthur since 1910.[134] Emma sued Arthur in 1926, claiming that he was inappropriately withholding a portion of the Republic's income from her,[135][136] but a judge ultimately ruled in Arthur's favor." This should be reduced to one short sentence. --Melchior2006 (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Another example: "When it opened as the Theatre Republic in 1900, the auditorium was decorated in green, white, and gold.[14][29] Belasco repainted the auditorium red, green, and brown in 1902.[41][42] The New Victory Theater was repainted in a red-and-gold palette, with green and purple accents, during the 1995 renovation.[28][40] The modern color palette is similar to the color scheme introduced in Belasco's 1902 renovation, but it uses lighter tones, reflecting the venue's function as a children's theater.[10]" This is really excessive detail. We could afford to lose about 92% of it... --Melchior2006 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your first reply, I have reduced it to two sentences. It won't fit in one short sentence, because there are several details here:
After Oscar Hammerstein had died in 1921 - important, since readers are going to wonder exactly why he isn't involved with the theater anymore when he had built it.
his widow Emma Swift Hammerstein tried to collect rent from the Republic Theatre but could not do so because of an injunction - admittedly not important, so I've removed it.
Oscar's son Arthur Hammerstein and two of Arthur's sisters subsequently sued Emma, their stepmother, for control of the Republic Theatre and Manhattan Opera House - probably less important, but still establishes the context for the next detail
A judge subsequently determined that the theater had belonged to Arthur since 1910 - important, because it establishes chain of ownership.
Emma sued Arthur in 1926, claiming that he was inappropriately withholding a portion of the Republic's income from her, but a judge ultimately ruled in Arthur's favor. - not important at all; it's an aside that's entertaining, but nothing really happened since Swift wasn't really entitled to the income in the first place, so I've removed it.
Regarding your second reply, I disagree. Maybe we could keep 92% of it, since the only thing that might be unnecessary is "The modern color palette is similar to the color scheme introduced in Belasco's 1902 renovation". But I think these details establish the historical design of the theater, similar to other articles about current and former Broadway theaters. And since WP:NOTPAPER applies, I don't see a point in removing these details, which are covered in multiple reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thanks for your edits, @Epicgenius:, they are really major improvements! May I make a further suggestion for serious reduction? "When the theater was renovated, HHPA had considered installing a glass canopy similar in design to Belasco's canopy. These plans were revised because the canopy would have extended too far outward onto 42nd Street.[10] The theater was flanked by alleys on either side, which led to iron staircases that provided an emergency exit from the theater.[14]" --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Melchior2006, no problem. And thanks for your comments earlier. I definitely agree with this removal - it's a sidenote that's unlikely to help further understanding of the article, especially the canopy thing. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)