Talk:Performing arts in Detroit
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Image(s) Nominated for Deletion
[edit]An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg Nominated for Deletion
[edit]An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
Editing changes
[edit]Perhaps the editor who keeps on making this change can explain why he is continuing to change what: a) was a perfectly good presentation; and b) was superior to the presentation he changed it to, as it is in a list of theaters from different cities. If he can't point to a policy supporting the change -- the one he first pointed to did not apply -- I would appreciate him not edit warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, because there is no good reason to link to redirects in see also sections. Just link to the actual article title. Policy isn't everything. There something called editorial judgement, and I am exercising mine. Especially since "Los Angeles Theater District" is a lousy redirect; LA has multiple theater districts (most notably Hollywood Blvd), so redirecting it to one, especially one that hasn't been LA's primary theater district in decades was a bad call. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"Second largest theater district"
[edit]The article states it, and cites a reasonably reliable source, but the claims seems a bit squirrelly to me and indeed a bit of nosing about turns up essentially identical, about equally well-sourced claims for Houston and Cleveland, here and here. Maybe by some one or another different measure these can all be true - total seats, total attendance, total number of theaters, total productions - but none of the sources explain what they're intending by the claims, and in light of the multiplicity of claims to the essentially identical station, I recommend removing the statement from this article (as well as any others, if they claim it there as well). Thoughts, please. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. It's especially bad when the citation is to a website promoting an individual city. This problem has been discussed in the blogosphere.[1] For this article, I'll see if I can find an appropriate tag to ask for an non-biased source. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BD1D:24C5:291D:C444 (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I took it out. Lots of cities claim it, and I haven't seen any but one or two identify Detroit as an actual #2. JohnInDC (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)