Talk:Broadway (Manhattan)

message: Wetman: How about thoroughfare here instead of avenue. It's a tricky wording, I think you'll agree, since Broadway (at least below 59th), technically isn't an avenue, although it's definitely more an avenue than a street. I thought maybe a more general word worked better here. -- Decumanus 21:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: article move?

message: I have created a separate page for Broadway theatre that focuses solely on the professional group of Broadway theatres.  I did leave everything about theatre along Broadway on this page because it is short and concise.  Others may prefer that it be removed and all that information be relegated to the Broadway theatre page.  In making this move, I have been working to change all the links on the hundreds of pages linking to Broadway, but referencing specifically Broadway theatre (e.g., premiered on Broadway, Broadway debute, Broadway premiere, etc.)  The few instances of Broadway that use Broadway to refer to the street in New York or to point to a location in New York (not directly associated with theatre) will be left linking to this page.  Assistance changing links is greatly appreciated.  I will continue to come back and move a dozen or so at a time as time permits.
Please note the with the new page, I have opted for the spelling Broadway theatre with and "re" because the League of American Theatres and the American Theatre Wing (two groups that work directly with Broadway theatre) spell theatre with an "re."  Please see http://webcdi.com/theater/theatre.php, http://www.americantheatrewing.org/, or http://www.broadway.org/ to see why this spelling was chose.
: DJKS 18:20, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: theatre article

message: Tesla's workshop on "south Fifth Avenue" was on a different street, south of Washington Square. It may be LaGuardia Place nowadays. --Wetman 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South Fifth Avene

message: Could anyone add sections to the article describing the Bronx and Westchester portions of Broadway (and expand upon the northern half of Manhattan)? The article currently reads very much like the world ends at 59th St. 82.36.26.229 03:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should not be moved, but... 

message: article used to say B'way was first electric lit avenue in US. History_of_street_lighting_in_the_United_States says it was Cleveland, 1879, but has no cite. I've added waffle words here. -- Akb4 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: lighting

message: This refers to Broadway in Manhattan and doesnt represent New york city as a whole. There is a broadway in EVERY borough and this one is exclusively about MANHATTAN.
:Actually, this refers to Broadway in Manhattan and the Bronx, not just Manhattan. AJD (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure; yesterday I biked along the Broadways of Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn.  It's been a month since I was in that part of The Bronx, and half a year since I visited Broadway of northern Staten Island, but yes, let's have a paragraph about them.  Jim.henderson (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City or Manhattan? 

message: Why does this article need a junction list in order to be promoted?  Assuming the list covers all major intersections, that would be roughly every subway station on Broadway, and more. And how would mileposts be calculated? Tinlinkin (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For an article to be considered at least C-Class for USRD, it must have a route description, history, and a junction list per WP:USRD/A. If you disagree, I suggest discussing this at WT:USRD. – TMF 16:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree; I didn't understand how the article was assessed, but I do now. I tried to do a junction list myself last week (and without the help of WP:RJL, which I found today), but it would be better if another user at USRD did it, and I know one. Thanks for the reply. Tinlinkin (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit list? 

message: Two weeks ago I was in NYC and walked on Broadway for a while. I noticed there were a lot of names and dates on the pavement, but never found out why they are there and didn't think about it again until now. It seemed very random: the first married couple to fly an airplane, something about the queen of the Netherlands, something about a French or Italian president (should have written this back then while it was still fresh in my memory). Can anyone shed some light on this and perhaps add it to the article? -- Sander (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These are people who have been subjects of ticker-tape parades on lower Broadway. Station1 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. Shouldn't this information be added to the article? Sander (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I've merged Canyon of Heroes into this article. Station1 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names on the pavement 

message: Since I'm seemingly getting trolled by User:Beyond My Ken with this issue (who reverted my initial edit nine days ago promising me an explanation, but despite editing Wikipedia everyday since has not responded yet), I'm asking everybody else: should this article adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (in particular MOS:APPENDIX)? If not, what merits the exemption? --bender235 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, last chance for User:Beyond My Ken before I take this to WP:ANI: what is the benefit of not having this article MOS-compliant? Where is, in fact, the improvement behind this edit? I give you one week to reply. --bender235 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, let's start with basic principles, beginning with the difference between a policy and a guideline.  It's fairly simply, really, a policy must be folllowed, and a guideline is there to guide us in our editing.  It's more than a suggestion, but significantly less than a policy.  The Manual of Style is, of course, one of our most important guidelines, containing to a certain extent the accumulated wisdom of Wikipedia editors over the years, but, despite that, it is still a guideline, and not a policy.  We are not required to follow it slavishly and without thought, and it is supposed to represent actual editing practices -- that is, as a guideline, it is intended to be descriptive and not prescriptive.So, what, then, is the attitude we should take towards the MOS?  Well, the answer to that lies in something that is a policy, WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. This policy (not a guideline or suggestion) flows naturally from fifth of Wikipedias Five Pillars:Wikipedia does not have firm rules.Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The ability to evolve over time is important here as well: if a guideline is interpreted too strictly and too literally, if all possible changes to the guideline are squealched because they don't conform to the current version, then there is absolutely no possibility of any change over time, and the Fifth Pillar has been violated.It is for these reasons that to ask "Should this edit get an exemption from MOS" is very much the wrong question, and displays what may be a basic misunderstanding about how Wikipedia is set up to work.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no Department of MOS Exemptions where one files a Form ME-A-32X in triplicate in order to be issued an exemption by a faceless worker falling asleep behind a counter. The real, proper question to ask about any non-standard edit is "Does it improve the encycylopedia?"  If it does, then it's irrelevant what the MOS says, because the MOS (dare I say it?) can be wrong.  The MOS may be behind the times.  The MOS may never have encountered the new possibility that the edit represents.(It's also best not to be sidetracked by the comment that often pops up: "Then change the MOS", because the MOS is intended to describe what we do, so if we change what we do, the MOS will be changed, in time.  Many editors seem to enjoy the "debating society" aspects of Wikipedia, but many others, such as myself, do not.  We are here to improve articles, not to spend inordinate amounts of time debating how many ways we will allow an angel to dance on the Wiki-pin.)So, basic principles aside, why is the way I've organized the bottom of the article that Bender235 objects to an improvement?  Well, basically, we're here to provide articles for the reader, and it is to our advantage, and to the benefit of the reader, to make those articles as streamlined and easy to read as possible. If we follow, literally, and without thought, the "rules" of the MOS regarding the "back of the book", we can end up with separate sections for footnotes, explanatory notes, sources, citations, bibliographies, further reading lists, etc, etc.  Given that "See also" and "External links" are firmly ensconced in their own sections, that means that even a quite short article will sometimes have in its index two or three sections of actual content, and then four or five "back of the book" sections, which are, for the most part, only of interest to a small portion of the reading audience.  It's much better to combine as many of those supporting sections into a single section, "References", to which the interested reader can go, knowing that he or she is going to get there all the notes and books and sources connected to the article. The index is streamlined and not overwhelmed by material that is basically irrelevant to a large portion of our users, but those who want that information know exactly where to go.This seems to me to be a very reasonable way to organize an article's "back of the book", and a distinct improvement (albeit a small one - which, in my opinion, is being made much too much of a fuss over) that is entirely justifiable under the principles outlined above.  For these reasons, I suggest that Bender235 leave the formatting as I have put it, and move on to improving articles, just as I have been doing and intend to return to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, on a personal note, it's really not very nice (or accurate in any way) to call an editor who's been here since 2005 and has over 123,000 edits to over 23,000 unique pages "a troll". That I did not answer Bender235's concern in a timely fashion is entirely my fault, and I apologize for it, but it really doesn't justify that kind of aspersion, nor the threat to go to AN/I - especially when this is a non-content matter of, in my opinion, very minor importance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been on Wikipedia about as long as you, and I apologize for my reactions. After two weeks of waiting for a simple explanation, I had the feeling of being in the middle of a filibuster here. Thanks for finally providing your thoughts. Yet, even though I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. What you're saying is basically "the current structure of the article is better (for the reader) then what WP:MOS recommends". If that was the case (which I disagree), then we should change the MOS. Because, after all, what helps the reader most is consistent style and article structure throughout Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia reader is used to find additional literature on a topic in the "Further reading" section, then every article providing additional literature should name that particular section "Further reading", not to mention make it a seperate section in the first place. So far, this is between you and me, and since you have repeatedly claimed ownership over this article, I will not re-structure the article w/out further consent from other users, thus avoiding an edit war. --bender235 (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reminding me of another point I'd intended to make: you've misconstrued the list of books here as a "further reading" list - it is not, it is a list of sources used in the writing of the article, which were not specifically notated via refs.  As you know, the formalization of references has been an ongoing process, and many articles were initially put together with only a list of sources, and no specific citations.As for changing the MOS: I would be overjoyed if the MOS would change to recognize this format, but I am not willing -- as I noted above -- to put in the many hours of debate that would take, and endure the hassles connected with it, when that time could be used to improve articles or upload my images on Commons.  I have no interest in that very tedious and frustrating process, which is one of the worst aspect of Wikipedia, when "changing by example" is an available option via IAR and the Fifth Pillar. "If you build it, they will come", and if you do it, the MOS will, eventually catch up to it.  In other words, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and this way is the one which I find most congenial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS exemption? 

message: :The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved, as I am withdrawing my request. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Broadway (Manhattan) →  – The entire length of Broadway is not in Manhattan, which is what the title implies. Epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *In all fairness, this page was at "Broadway (New York City)", but the disambiguator always bothered me, because it wasn't accurate, considering the Broadway in Brooklyn and Queens, also part of New York City - so I moved it here, then remade "Broadway (NYC)" into a DAB page. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *WP:SOFIXIT - BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Besides, shouldn't those things point to "CURRENT PAGE" rather than the page name? Sounds like a problem in the writing of the template. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the template does and that's why it was broken. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move 

message: Now that the RM just above has been withdrawn, perhaps we can have a general RfC about what the best name for the article about "Broadway", the noted street which originates in Manhattan, is nicknamed the "The Canyon of Heroes" downtown and "The Great White Way" in the Theatre District, then runs through the Bronx, and continues as Route 9A through Westchester County, where in many localities, but not all, it is called "Broadway".  The last RM about it was 2 1/2 years ago, and had very little response.  Since there's a current focus here at the moment, perhaps we can get more of a variety of opinions.
I believe that I've listed below, each in their own subsection, the viable options.  Could we !vote and discuss each option within each section, in order to get a sense of what the consensus is? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified every editor who participated in previous discussion, regardless of the views they expressed.  I had previously posted a neutral pointer on the talk page of WikiProject NYC, and will now do the same for WikiProject U.S. Streets. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see who I notified on my contrib list (all those 552 and 553 byte edits).  If I've missed anyone, feel free to notify them - I just found two that I had missed.  Please avoid contravening the policy on canvassing by notifying only people of one particular view. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we request closure at WP:AN/RFC? Note also that since any result of this RfC would only include a move, not deletion, I don't think we specifically need an administrator. Any uninvolved editor should do. — MusikAnimal talk 02:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested at AN that an admin close it - I think an admin close would help dispel doubts about the result, but if no admin comes by to close it, a non-admin close is better than none at all. BMK (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

text: *Ironic, since I've worked on Broadway shows - maybe I'm overcompensating, trying not to give my own profession more prominence than it deserves.  In any case, point taken, I think I'll scratch my support here in favor of "Broadway (Manhattan)" below, although I won't go so far as to oppose this option. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could the article be split into two parts, one for Manhattan and one for the Bronx and Westchester, if that is the case? Dismiss that, it is covered below. Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Now my preferred option. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be a separate article for the Broadways in Nassau, Suffolk, Brooklyn, and Queens. Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, are they notable?  Or the one in Haverstraw in Rockland?  The point isn't to make a multiplicity of articles about non-notable streets in every locality in SE New York State, but to find a disambiguator for the famous Broadway that's as accurate as possible and not misleading to the reader.  I don't really see how either of the solutions you've proposed here do that very well. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so we have the ambiguous Broadway, the overprecise Broadway (New York) and Broadway (New York City), and the underprecise Broadway (Manhattan). And then we have U.S. Route 9 in New York, which basically covers Broadway north of 178th Street in Manhattan. Maybe this article can be split into two parts: the Manhattan part, which can stay, and the Bronx/Westchester part, which can go into the U.S. 9 article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no justification for a division along those lines. I believe you're overthinking this. Perhaps it would be better to allow other voices to express their opinions rather than cluttering up the page with your opinions and mine; that was the purpose of my setting up this RfC, to open the subject up to more editors. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Splitting the topic between Broadway (Manhattan) and NY-US9 sounds like a very good idea. This article only really details the Manhattan portion, the paragraph that deals with beyond the island is really just ancillary material. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Ummm.... that's essentially what we have now. The current article (this one) is primarily about the street in Manhattan, with some info on the Broanx and Westchester, while the U.S. Route 9 in New York article is about the entire road, with only a litle bit about the street in Manhattan.  Given this, there doesn't seem to be a lot of need for any additional split, because the street in the Bronx and Westchester is not, by itself, notable.  So, we're left with the original question, the purpose of the RfC, which is "What is the best name for this article." BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this one also runs through Westchester. Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: What is the best name for the article about the street called "Broadway" which originates in Manhattan? 

message: This option would require moving the current DAB at Broadway to Broadway (disambiguation) (which is a redirect to Broadway right now), allowing the street to take over as the primary subject.
*Support - This is my preferred option, since I believe that when most people refer to "Broadway" this is what they mean.  Even those who are using "Broadway" to mean the Broadway theatre are using it as a metonym. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ironic, since I've worked on Broadway shows - maybe I'm overcompensating, trying not to give my own profession more prominence than it deserves.  In any case, point taken, I think I'll scratch my support here in favor of "Broadway (Manhattan)" below, although I won't go so far as to oppose this option. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. [[Broadway]]

message: This is where the article is at this moment.
*Support – technically, there are Broadways in all five boroughs, but this particular Broadway goes through the most boroughs. Epicgenius (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. [[Broadway (New York City)]]

message: This is where I moved the article to, but was reverted on the basis of the existing consensus.  Currently a redirect to Broadway (New York City)
* Support – I'd argue one might expect Broadway to be Broadway theatre, etc, hence disambiguation would be the best fit. Broadway (New York City) is just plain confusing, when Broadway (Brooklyn) is also in New York City. Further reasoning to opt with appending (Manhattan) may simply be for consistency with other articles, such as Spring Street (Manhattan), Washington Street (Manhattan), etc. — MusikAnimal talk 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could the article be split into two parts, one for Manhattan and one for the Bronx and Westchester, if that is the case? Dismiss that, it is covered below. Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Now my preferred option. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. [[Broadway (Manhattan)]]

message: For those uncomfortable with the fact that the street in Manhattan doesn't run through only Manhattan
*Weak support if we expand coverage to more than just a paragraph on the Bronx and beyond. I'd prefer a separate article on Broadway beyond the bridge. (This !vote does not conflict with my other support, as that depends on keeping focus on Manhattan; this !vote depends on expanding the article) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. [[Broadway (Manhattan and the Bronx)]] or [[Broadway (Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester)]] or some other variation on this

message: I did not include Broadway (New York) because the RM for that was withdrawn and received no "support" !votes in the very short time it was open, but those who prefer that, or some other possibility, can put there !votes here.
====a. Broadway (New York)====
*Support move to Broadway (New York). I realize my opinion will be unpopular but I truly believe this is the best, and most appropriate, name for the title. Although the part of Broadway in Manhattan is the best known (and I'm not even calling that into question) it still extends out of the five boroughs and into NY state and with this clearly stated in the article the only logical title is Broadway (New York). Zarcadia (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be a separate article for the Broadways in Nassau, Suffolk, Brooklyn, and Queens. Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, are they notable?  Or the one in Haverstraw in Rockland?  The point isn't to make a multiplicity of articles about non-notable streets in every locality in SE New York State, but to find a disambiguator for the famous Broadway that's as accurate as possible and not misleading to the reader.  I don't really see how either of the solutions you've proposed here do that very well. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so we have the ambiguous Broadway, the overprecise Broadway (New York) and Broadway (New York City), and the underprecise Broadway (Manhattan). And then we have U.S. Route 9 in New York, which basically covers Broadway north of 178th Street in Manhattan. Maybe this article can be split into two parts: the Manhattan part, which can stay, and the Bronx/Westchester part, which can go into the U.S. 9 article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no justification for a division along those lines. I believe you're overthinking this. Perhaps it would be better to allow other voices to express their opinions rather than cluttering up the page with your opinions and mine; that was the purpose of my setting up this RfC, to open the subject up to more editors. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Splitting the topic between Broadway (Manhattan) and NY-US9 sounds like a very good idea. This article only really details the Manhattan portion, the paragraph that deals with beyond the island is really just ancillary material. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Ummm.... that's essentially what we have now. The current article (this one) is primarily about the street in Manhattan, with some info on the Broanx and Westchester, while the U.S. Route 9 in New York article is about the entire road, with only a litle bit about the street in Manhattan.  Given this, there doesn't seem to be a lot of need for any additional split, because the street in the Bronx and Westchester is not, by itself, notable.  So, we're left with the original question, the purpose of the RfC, which is "What is the best name for this article." BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this one also runs through Westchester. Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 5. Some other name

message: *Support move to Broadway (New York). I realize my opinion will be unpopular but I truly believe this is the best, and most appropriate, name for the title. Although the part of Broadway in Manhattan is the best known (and I'm not even calling that into question) it still extends out of the five boroughs and into NY state and with this clearly stated in the article the only logical title is Broadway (New York). Zarcadia (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: a. [[Broadway (New York)]]

message: *It is accurate and quite concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)
*Oppose - I am aware of no other article that uses "southeastern New York" as a disambiguator.  Aside from that, the term is ambiguous, as it is not clear what counties it is meant to include (Rockland? Putnam? Orange?)  However, Nassau and Suffolk would certainly be included and this Broadway does not run through them.  In short, this disambiguator doesn't really seem to clarify anything. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be a separate article for the Broadways in Nassau, Suffolk, Brooklyn, and Queens. Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, are they notable?  Or the one in Haverstraw in Rockland?  The point isn't to make a multiplicity of articles about non-notable streets in every locality in SE New York State, but to find a disambiguator for the famous Broadway that's as accurate as possible and not misleading to the reader.  I don't really see how either of the solutions you've proposed here do that very well. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so we have the ambiguous Broadway, the overprecise Broadway (New York) and Broadway (New York City), and the underprecise Broadway (Manhattan). And then we have U.S. Route 9 in New York, which basically covers Broadway north of 178th Street in Manhattan. Maybe this article can be split into two parts: the Manhattan part, which can stay, and the Bronx/Westchester part, which can go into the U.S. 9 article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no justification for a division along those lines. I believe you're overthinking this. Perhaps it would be better to allow other voices to express their opinions rather than cluttering up the page with your opinions and mine; that was the purpose of my setting up this RfC, to open the subject up to more editors. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *Splitting the topic between Broadway (Manhattan) and NY-US9 sounds like a very good idea. This article only really details the Manhattan portion, the paragraph that deals with beyond the island is really just ancillary material. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: b. [[Broadway (southeastern New York)]] or something like that

message: Who actually favors splitting the article between here and U.S. 9?
*As mentioned in the previous section, maybe this article can be split into two parts: the Manhattan part, which can stay, and the Bronx/Westchester part, which can go into the U.S. Route 9 in New York article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ummm.... that's essentially what we have now. The current article (this one) is primarily about the street in Manhattan, with some info on the Broanx and Westchester, while the U.S. Route 9 in New York article is about the entire road, with only a litle bit about the street in Manhattan.  Given this, there doesn't seem to be a lot of need for any additional split, because the street in the Bronx and Westchester is not, by itself, notable.  So, we're left with the original question, the purpose of the RfC, which is "What is the best name for this article." BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: c. Split between this article and the US9 article

message: *Only this one runs through Westchester, out of all Broadways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)
*Oppose - As far as I know, as a former resident of Westchester, none of the streets named "Broadway" in Westchester which are continuous with the famous Broadway (that is, the parts of NYS Route 9A that some localities call "Broadway") are notable in and of themself, therefore sharing the disambiguator in this way seems unproductive, since the article is primarily about the Manhattan street. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this one also runs through Westchester. Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: d. [[Broadway (New York City and Westchester)]] 

message: I think the infobox image should be 300px, since 350px squeezes the "History" section on the Chromebook to about 250-300 pixels wide. Any thoughts on this? Epic Genius (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, don't use the Chromebook, use a computer. The image needs the size - but we can try 325px and see what happens. BMK (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at it on Chromebook at 350, and I do not see the effect you're speaking of, the history section is about 400-450 pixels wide, plenty wide enough to read comformtably. What Chromebook are you talking about?  (Just to remind you, you've had problems like this before, and when I check them out on Androids and iPhones, the problem is not duplicated.) BMK (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you, by any chance, have a HP Chromebook? That is the one that I am using, and the image and history sections are at least equally wide. I use a MacBook Air as well, and for some reason, this problem doesn't occur there. Epic Genius (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chromebook is my son's, who's out on a date right now, but I'll ask him when he returns.  How does 325 work? BMK (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 325px works well. Personally, I don't like squeezing the text between the infobox and the images, but it's just my preference. Epic Genius (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My son's Chromebook is an HP Chromebook 13.  He runs both Chrome OS and Ubuntu as a front end, and we checked under both and saw no problems with 350px.  However, if you're OK with 325, it's not ideal but it's OK on my end, so we can leave it there as far as I'm concerned. BMK (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I use the Chrome OS, and I see it differently through the Chromebook, but... I'm okay with 325px. 350px works for me in the MacBook, but it is small in the Chromebook (didn't check the model, though). Epic Genius (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image size 

message: http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/great_white_way
Just before I did my important work on the origin of "the Big Apple," I solved "the Great White Way." I identified SHep Friedman, from a 
detailed article in the New York Morning Telegraph. He was writing for the New York Evening Telegram in February 1902 when he wrote the now-famous headline, after a snowstorm covered Broadway white. Later, the term "Great White Way" applied to the bright lights of Broadway. 
  
I do not write for Wikipedia, but I would like credit for my discoveries!
Barry (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Barry Popik, you are free to edit Wikipedia articles just like anybody else. It would help, though, if you could cite reputable sources to support your claim. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Reputable sources! I looked through the original New York Morning Telegraphs and found the origin to both the Big Apple and the Great White Way the same day. I found the New York Evening Telegram cite over 20 years ago. I gave my work away free to the New-York Historical Society, and I've written on the American Dialect Society listserv. I visited Shep Friedman grave in Fort Worth. I do not write for Wikipedia because I have my own website, but this is ridiculous.
Barry (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Great White Way" information uses my work, credits someone else!

message: http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/avenue_of_heroes_canyon_of_heroes/
While Wikipedia still doesn't give credit for my own work on "Great White Way" (I'm forbidden from properly crediting my own research--it's a long story), here is the 'Heroes" story. Lower Broadway was called the "Avenue of Heroes" in 1933. Then, in May 1942, Fifth Avenue stores from 34th Street to 59th Street displayed portraits of the military, becoming the new "Avenue of Heroes." Lower Broadway took a slightly new name, "Canyon of Heroes," in 1945. 
Barry (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Avenue of Heroes" and the "Canyon of Heroes" 

message: I will add 0 access-dates and 23 archive urls to the citations in this page. Details:
* Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/15/nyregion/oldest-streets-are-protected-as-landmark.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C14F93A55107B93C5A9178DD85F408585F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B14FC3D5D167B93C0A81788D85F438585F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40716F73B5C137A93C7A9178DD85F468685F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70C11FA3A581A7B93C7A9178AD95F478685F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C1FFB395812738DDDAB0994DD405B858AF1D3, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50717FC3F59117B93C5A8178AD85F428685F9, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/07/10/2008-07-10_city_to_make_two_broadway_lanes_bikes_wa.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/nyregion/12broadway.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/weekinreview/10dunlap.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/09/23/safety-fixes-slated-for-one-of-manhattans-most-dangerous-intersections/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/08/realestate/a-conversion-plan-roils-the-ansonia.html?smid=pl-share, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://forgotten-ny.com/2010/11/amsterdammin-from-west-72nd-110th/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.beacontheatre.com/about/history.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20B10FD345B11738DDDA80A94DC405B888DF1D3, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.symphonyspace.org/history, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://nysparks.com/historic-sites/37/details.aspx, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/pwwmh/ny22.htm, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=10711, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.sleepyhollowcemetery.org/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/q-a-todays-giants-ticker-tape-parade/, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/nyregion/11bloomberg.html, (see diff when it was first added in article)
* Added archive url for http://web.mta.info/nyct/maps/manbus.pdf, (see diff when it was first added in article)
--Tim1357 talk|%5D%5D%21 poke 14:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: mta.info and nytimes.com are not dead links. I don't know if archive is needed for these links, particularly since they aren't going to go dead anytime soon. epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Archives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Broadway (Manhattan). 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/20121105194516/http://updates.gizmodo.com:80/post/34784175229/manhattans-sandy-evacuation-zones-match-up-with to http://updates.gizmodo.com/post/34784175229/manhattans-sandy-evacuation-zones-match-up-with
*Added  tag to http://www.ny1.com/6-bronx-news-content/features/4215/february-14th-in-nyc-history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Broadway (Manhattan). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ny1.com/6-bronx-news-content/features/4215/february-14th-in-nyc-history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214014236/http://www.beacontheatre.com/about/history.html to http://www.beacontheatre.com/about/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Broadway (Manhattan). 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/20120219184842/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=10711 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=10711
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An RM five years ago rejected the idea of moving this article to a title that reflects the fact that Broadway goes into the Bronx and Westchester. Looking at this article again, I think we should pare back this article so it only talks about the portion of Broadway in Manhattan, as one may normally assumed from the title. (Specifically, I'm looking to delete the Broadway (Manhattan)#Westchester County subsection and rewrite the lead to talk only about the 13-mile section of Broadway in Manhattan,)
The info about the Bronx and Westchester portions of Broadway can be adequately covered in the article U.S. Route 9 in New York, as Broadway is signed as US 9 for its entire length north of 179th Street in Manhattan. There is a lot more that can be added about Broadway within Manhattan itself, and I think we should refocus this article to be about the section of Broadway south of the Manhattan/Bronx border. I think the Bronx and Westchester sections are entirely duplicative of the US 9 (NY) article and that the article should really focus on the extensive history and culture related to the Manhattan section of Broadway. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope