Talk:The Broadway Theatre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] link
- User:Shadowbot has challenged the link to nytix.com with reference to WP:EL. It appears to me that the linked page gives additional information (directions, photo, link to buy tickets, and seating arrangement) that are not suitable for incorporation into Wikipedia and therefore useful as an external link. The challenge should be discussed here rather than made the subject of an edit war. --Dystopos 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia is not ticketmaster or mapquest. We do not promote things, please read WP:SPAM for more. JoeSmack Talk 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- The external site contains valid information. The fact that you can buy tickets on the site does not constitute a promotion on Wikipedia's part, nor does it violate Wikipedia's policy any more than a link to McDonalds.com from McDonald's does. --Dystopos 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- So that part of the information is not important; we don't link for the ticket service. The rest of the information is includable, and pictures can be uploaded. A link to the official site of the theater is of course allowed per WP:EL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you are mistaking your own editorial policy with the policies of Wikipedia. --Dystopos 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:External links and WP:SPAM, it is quite clear. Ask on those talk pages if you want some 3rd party opinions, they are both quite active. JoeSmack Talk 00:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Believe me, I've read both policies several times. The enforcement actions you are supporting are NOT clearly supported by the policy. Perhaps you could point out the specific part of the policy being violated? If not, perhaps you could use the Wikipedia talk page to collaborate on a rewording of the policy. In the meantime, we are bound by much clearer policies to assume good faith and forbear the implied ownership of articles. --Dystopos 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:External links and WP:SPAM, it is quite clear. Ask on those talk pages if you want some 3rd party opinions, they are both quite active. JoeSmack Talk 00:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you are mistaking your own editorial policy with the policies of Wikipedia. --Dystopos 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- So that part of the information is not important; we don't link for the ticket service. The rest of the information is includable, and pictures can be uploaded. A link to the official site of the theater is of course allowed per WP:EL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The external site contains valid information. The fact that you can buy tickets on the site does not constitute a promotion on Wikipedia's part, nor does it violate Wikipedia's policy any more than a link to McDonalds.com from McDonald's does. --Dystopos 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not ticketmaster or mapquest. We do not promote things, please read WP:SPAM for more. JoeSmack Talk 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(unident) WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 3 and 4. hope this helps. and WP:OWN has nothing to do with article, not sure why you brought it up. WP:COI says in the last sentence of its front guideline box "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." JoeSmack Talk 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming prohibits using external links for the purpose of promoting a website or product. Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, #3 bars links which are ""mainly intended to promote a website." The original contributor claims that his purpose was to provide additional information. I don't see where the link can be said to contradict that claim, since it does provide additional information. Does User:LincolnNeb have a history of spamming which would indicate that his intention was otherwise, or are we merely assuming bad faith? Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #4 is more to the point, since nytix.com may primarily exist to sell products or services. However, since the page does contain relevant information which cannot, for reasons of copyright, be incorporated into Wikipedia, and the tone of the page is not a sales pitch, but informational in nature, I believe that the value of the link is debatable and not a matter for a broad interpretation. When you refer to the motto "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." the question is "who was first?". Lincolneb added a link in what I believe to be good faith. It was removed by a bot and his attempt to reverse the (from his perspective) mistake was reverted. If someone were to be assuming good faith and not claiming to own the article, perhaps that person should be the one bringing the issue to the talk page, not claiming that other editors must satisfy a burden of proof based on someone elses broad interpretation of linking policies. In my opinion it is better to have a few questionable links lying around than to intimidate editors with false appeals to policy. --Dystopos 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The link it self sells tickets. The policies and guidelines I mention speak to this thoroughly. I've made no faith assumptions, nor do I own the article. The question isn't 'who was first'. Use the talk page to gain consensus, then add to the article. Editors hold the burden of proof. It isn't better to have a few questionable links, we're all about staying as accurate as possible here. JoeSmack Talk 00:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Burden of proof has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. The relevant core policy remains Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When an issue is clear cut, then it will garner wide support. Does the usefulness of a seating chart outweigh the loathsome presence of a "buy tickets" link? Let's talk about it. Or better yet, find a less loathsome substitute rather than just removing informational links. --Dystopos 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The link it self sells tickets. The policies and guidelines I mention speak to this thoroughly. I've made no faith assumptions, nor do I own the article. The question isn't 'who was first'. Use the talk page to gain consensus, then add to the article. Editors hold the burden of proof. It isn't better to have a few questionable links, we're all about staying as accurate as possible here. JoeSmack Talk 00:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the article needs a link with a seating chart or driving directions? We're not a tourist guide, we're an encyclopedia! If people want to buy tickets, find driving directions, or figure out where to sit, they can do so on a myriad of other sites specifically designed for this information. And for the record, I originally placed that link on Shadowbot's blacklist to combat a fairly persistent linkspammer some time ago. Shadow1 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shoudn't...
Cats the Musical be on it's list of noteable productions? I put it on there Warriormartin (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Broadway is a confusing name for a Broadway Theatre. Broadway is legal description of a series of theatres in New York of which the Broadway Theatre is one! Cats opened at the Winter Garden which is also a Broadway Theatre.Americasroof (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
YEah, but shouldn't it still be on there? Warriormartin (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Move to Broadway Theatre (building)
The above points out the countless problems that occur with this theatre. While I am loath to make name changes this should probably be moved to a clearer name to differentiate it from Broadway theatre. This theatre is not referred to as THE Broadway Theatre any place else other than on Wikipedia. Americasroof (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
