Talk:Off-Broadway

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Musical Theatre Off-Broadway is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Theatre Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am pretty sure the term off-broadway was coined by or in relation to experimental The Living Theatre group in the 1950s, though I don't have a reference. Any counter-suggestions welcome.

90.192.207.162 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I...have no cite, but I'd be amazed if the term only dates to the 1950s. I suspect (and this is why I'd dispute the opening paragraph) that the term "Off-Broadway" is basically as old as the term "Broadway" -- although, of course, I mean that only in the sense of referring to theatre that was performed in New York City, and "in the vein of Broadway theatre", but not "top tier" -- yeah, yeah, value judgment. Hmm. 71.235.56.24 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposed merge of Off-Off-Broadway. "Off-Off Broadway" as a term has been used for decades and the distinction between the two is fairly well defined.--Pharos 06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pharos, I agree that there is a distinction, yet the articles should still be merged. The two are very closely related. There's no rule that says "one article per noun" -- it's one article per set of related concepts, and if there is too much information to fit on one article, then split. For examples of other articles covering related concepts see Acronym and initialism and Endianness. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 06:57Z

Those are examples of intimately related topics that are best discussed together. I think there is enough distinct material out there for two very long articles here, though I probably lack the experience to write them. I have attended both Off-Broadway shows and Off-Off-Broadway shows and can testify there is a fair amount of difference— in terms of content, one could well classify Broadway and Off-Broadway together, with Off-Off-Broadway the outlier. As it is, the two articles we have now are a bit larger than stubs and I think can stand on their own.--Pharos 07:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cede the point that O-B is closer to B than O-O-B. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 08:31Z

Agreed - Broadway and Off Broadway are both professional theatre whereas Off-Off-Broadway is a very "catch all" term which can refer to anything from a completely amateur production in New Jersey to a non-union production where the actors are paid very little. If any merger were to take place, it should be Broadway and Off Broadway being merged but, frarnkly, they are different enough that both deserve their own articles.

Why are a handful of theaters listed under external links? Since there are too many theaters to list them all (without creating a whole new project), shouldn't the list include none? Or is there a rationale for listing just these few? Grease Bandit 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Bandit -- I agree with you that there are far too many external links on this page, as these are only a select number of theatres, and we should either display them all of display none of them. I'll give it a few days for people to offer a rebuttal, but then I will remove the theatre links. Locke (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the excess external links from this page. Locke (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Off-Broadway (with a hyphen) correct, or is it just Off Broadway (no hyphen)? There's no rhyme or reason in the entry, which vascillates between the two. This is the subject of the entry, after all, so be consistent. Anyone? Kinkyturnip (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the "rules" of good grammar, a hyphen should be added when tying three or more words together to avoid confusion (e.g., "hair-brained idea" as opposed to "hair brained-idea"). Under this guideline, Off Broadway should always have a hyphen when describing another noun (e.g., Off-Broadway Theatre or "Off-Broadway play"). As to whether it should have a hyphen when used alone, that's simply a matter of someone making the decision, because there doesn't seem to be any one definitive answer. Personally, I prefer the hyphen in all instances, which would necessitate changing the name of the entry.Rarmin (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, hare-brained. A person which such poor spelling should not be giving advice on grammar. I can't believe nobody has commented before. Just goes to show how reliable the whole Wikipedia concept is, when looking things up in it.

Hi -- Just for the record, the hyphen is used when "Off-Broadway" is an adjective. For example: The Off-Broadway show, I'm So Wonderful, was, in fact, wonderful! You don't want to use a hyphen if you're talking about a location, e.g., "Where's that show that you were talking about the other day?" "Oh, it's playing Off Broadway somewhere." XO Sugarbat (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that these are old posts, but since people like me still come here and read them, I would like to clarify the confusion as to when to hyphenate "off-Broadway." It is true that the rules of hyphenation can seem inconsistent at times, but many people believe that grammar rules are to be created by individual writers to choose what sounds right to him or her. That is not accurate. Kinkyturnip, your assessment that there's "...no rhyme or reason in the entry, which vascillates <sic> between the two" is not accurate. To editor Rarmin, your observation that whether to hyphenate "off-Broadway" is "...simply a matter of someone making the decision, because there doesn't seem to be any one definitive answer" is also inaccurate. Sugarbat, your comment that "off-Broadway" should include a hyphen when it is used as an adjective is correct, but after that comment your advice veers way off track when you advise that the hyphen is not appropriate when "you're talking about a location," suggesting that there are occasions when the hyphen should not be used, which is also not correct. You are all giving good-faith advice and you should be applauded for your efforts to provide assistance. Please know that I totally understand your confusion. Respectfully, I would like to elucidate what English grammar dictates when using "off-Broadway." The word "off-Broadway" is a compound noun and the word "off" is a preposition that modifies the noun "Broadway." Hyphens are required when a preposition modifies a noun and the words are used together as a compound noun. While I am not 100 percent perfect, English grammar is my passion and I am always here to assist on grammar questions. Best wishes and God bless. MarydaleEd (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among other edits (including making hyphenated adjective phrase "Off-Broadway" consistent throughout), I deleted the following paragraph in this article a little while ago:

There was a time when, regardless of the size of the venue, a theatre could not be considered Off Broadway if it were within the "Broadway Box (the traditional Broadway Theatre District)." This is no longer the case as evidenced by a number of theatres in that area, including (but not limited to) New World Stages, The Little Shubert Theatre and The Snapple Center. However, if an Off-Broadway theatre is located within the "Broadway Box," then there is a slightly higher minimum salary requirement for actors, according Actors' Equity (labor union for live-theater performers) rules.[citation needed]

Twice. I clearly stated my reasons, both times, in the edit history:

First deletion edit: 01:41, 15 September 2008 Sugarbat (Talk | contribs) (4,515 bytes) (I've read this paragraph at least ten times, and I've decided it's too confusing (and irrelevant) to leave in, even tagged. So I'm taking it out.)

Random21 (who conveniently seems to have no user page) undid my revision, with this edit summary: 02:45, 15 September 2008 Random21 (Talk | contribs) (5,206 bytes) (Undid revision 238487124 by Sugarbat (talk) Just because something isn't simple doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is clear.)

My second deletion edit, with summary: 20:50, 15 September 2008 Sugarbat (Talk | contribs) (4,497 bytes) (Don't have a problem with "not simple"; have problem with what I said. Re-deleted based on 1.) irrelevant/confusing 2.) not cited. Please cite/edit for clarity & i'll leave it alone. :))

Random21 immediately undid the very same revision, only this time without a summary.

I run the risk of breaking the three-revert rule by deleting this paragraph again right away (and I'm also not at all interested in a war), so I'm reporting the incident here for now, in case anyone else wants to review before I delete it again tomorrow. Feel free to ask any questions about why I feel this paragraph should be removed (and please also see my other, extensive edits to this article so you'll know I'm not just running amok through here w/a weed-whacker.) Love, Sugarbat (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. I will come back and delete that paragraph tomorrow if it's not rewritten for clarity, for the good of the article. Nothing personal, mans. Swear. Random21, I know you're trying to help, but I can't see that you're sticking to WP rules. So if you revert my edit again I'm going to call in the wigs.[reply]

OK, time for some real-world perspective. I did not intend to delete your comments, only to restore the paragraph you continued to incorrectly delete - so take a deep breath and relax! :)

Beyond that, once again, the issue being explained in the paragraph you have a problem with - that off broadway used to mean the theatre had to be outside of the "broadway box" as described in the article - is relevant information and correct. The "source" is my citing of the fact that there are now currently several off broadway theatres in that area where they previously could not be. It is what it is and I don't know why you want to delete it. I'm sorry that you don't understand the paragraph, but it's perfectly clear as written. Please stop removing it. Thanks Random21 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is old but I would like to respond to something Random21 said. Claiming that the source is you citing a fact is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's No Original Research and Verifiability rules. You can never be the source of information even if you are 100 percent certain that what you are saying is true. While I completely disagree with Sugarbat's claim that the paragraph he or she deleted was "confusing (and irrelevant)," (the information was not at all confusing and quite relevant), Sugarbat was absolutely correct that the paragraph needed a proper source. I don't even know if the paragraph is in the article because I came directly to the Talk page, but you both have made comments that are inaccurate and I am addressing them for the benefit of editors who will come here and see your conversation. Best wishes and God bless. MarydaleEd (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a template for OBIE plays. This is confusing--why just plays? Why just OBIE? Should the article have templates for OBIE Musicals, Drama Desk Plays, DD Musicals, etc, etc? (Assuming those templates exist.) Or, perhaps no template at all? Pondering, don't have an answer. JeanColumbia (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Broadway theatre article nor the Off-off-Broadway article have templates at the bottom. There is already an "Awards" section that describes all the awards and gives links to the appropriate articles. So, I don't think the award templates add to the reader's understanding of the subject of Off-Broadway theatre. I'm in favor of taking it out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the Broadway and Off-Broadway theatres spell their names "x Theatre". In addition, "theatre" is correct in all dialects of English, while "theater" is correct only in American English. Even in the US, people connected with the theatre use the spelling "theatre"; and using the international spelling makes the article less US-centric. Therefore we should use the spelling that is universally correct. See also Broadway Theatre and this. Here are some American sources that use the spelling "theatre", among many others.

• Playbill
• The Broadway League
• The New Yorker magazine
• NBC
• The Rodgers and Hammerstein Encyclopedia
• BroadwayWorld.com; same
• Broadway.com
• New York Theatre Guide -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014

The question of "theater" or "theatre" is not a difficult one, nor is it one vexed in confusion. Wikipedia style is based upon four external styles, The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner's Modern English Usage, New Hart's Rules and Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Of the four, three of the styles use "theater" and the fourth recommends "theater" when writing for an American audience and "theatre" for a British audience. I might note for reference only, since these styles are not and should not be imposed upon Wikipedia style, that the Associated Press (AP) style, MLA style and the New York Times style all use "theater" as well. As for your list, NBC does not have a specific style, but most of the articles I found that referenced theater spelled it with the "er" and not the "re." Other than The New Yorker and NBC, your list is made up of small trade media and are not major entities that dictate all major styles for professional writers. For Wikipedia, the word should be written as "theater." Best wishes. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COMMONALITY. Wikipedia's manual of style is based on discussion amongst contributors, nothing more. Their opinions may be influenced by their familiarity with other style guides, but it has been explicitly rejected that any of those style guides are defining for Wikipedia because Wikipedia works on consensus. oknazevad (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Responding to decade+ old posts is pointless. Open a new discussion if you really feel that it's needed, otherwise just accept that it's a settled matter and your insistence on some sort of objective English is not accepted (because, guess what, your prescriptivist ideas are rejected by actual linguists!) oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were extensive discussions about this at WP:MUSICALS over the years, and what we always agree was that since the professional theatre community, even in America, prefers "theatre" (note the names of Broadway theatres), and the British and commonwealth countries invariably use theatre, we would always use theatre worldwide. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Village South Theatre have any connection with the SoHo Playhouse at 15 Vandam St, New York, NY 10013?

1. If so, the Village South Theatre article should be expanded with SoHo Playhouse details, and the coord included.
2. If no connection, there should be a new article created for the SoHo Playhouse with its coords included.

Either way, coordinates should be used.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the SoHo Playhouse, it's the same theatre under new ownership. As such, it should be one article at the SoHo Playhpuse name, with its past use as Villiage South included. So more #1, with the added step of moving the article to the current name. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. It's still a stub, though. Not sure what else we can really do to expand it, though. oknazevad (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't clutter! They're useful for future editors! Aristophanes68 (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are clutter. Ref name tags are not appropriate unless the ref is used more than once. Your other changes look good, though. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The contractual definition changed to encompass theatres meeting the standard, which benefits these theatres because of the lower minimum required salary for Actors' Equity performers at Off-Broadway theatres as compared with the salary requirements of the union for Broadway theatres" used to have an actorsequity.org reference from 2007, but I cannot find that information on the current AE website. If you can find where on the site the info came from, please add a reference! Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ref that you found is very good. Although it is from 1998, the principles mentioned still apply.

Here's the Off-Broadway minimum salary chart: http://www.actorsequity.org/agreements/agreement_info.asp?inc=520

Here's the Broadway minimum salary chart: http://www.actorsequity.org/agreements/agreement_info.asp?inc=001 -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it's a daunting task, but I think this article would benefit enormously from having a list of theatres, like the article for Broadway theatre. Even if it's not a comprehensive list, it seems it would be apropos in this article versus just existing in a navbox. We could include the address and the seating capacity (sourced from http://www.lortel.org/Archives). IMHO, having a list of shows like the Broadway article does would be a bridge too far, due to the nature of turnover off-Broadway (runs average 6 weeks), and many of the shows wouldn't even have articles because they're not notable.

I'm going to get started, and look forward to hearing your thoughts. Irvek (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a noble idea in principle, but far too much for this article. For that matter, venues come and go somewhat frequently off-Broadway (I know two have closed in the past year alone), and seating capacities are often flexible in off-Broadway spaces. Plus many of them are multi-space complexes, and we really don't serve readers by including multiple lines taken up by the same name. So while I can see the positives, I think a full chart is unneeded. A plain list would be better. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it pretty much duplicate the template at the bottom of the page? Also, what order are they? It's not alphabetical, or by seating capacity or location. Is it random? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The navbox template isn't a sufficient substitute for actual article content. Navboxes are meta-content, much like the links on the left or categories on the bottom. That said, the order of the chart really doesn't make a lick of sense. It should be alphabetized at the least. But I still think a plain list is better. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no order to the chart as of yet; I've been adding the theatres at the bottom as I went, and was planning on ordering them when it was done. (Also, while we're on the topic, how should we order them? Alphabetically?) @Oknazevad, even if there's a change in the available theatres once or twice a year, it's still not such rapid turnover as to render the list obsolete. Anyway, I can see the merits of just having a list versus a chart, especially since the theatre complexes render the address column somewhat redundant. Any thoughts on maybe including the seating capacity in parenthesis after the theatre name? I feel like that's pertinent information, both individually (if someone's looking for a theatre for a specific purpose) and to present an overall picture. (For example, until I started making the list, I didn't realize how more than half of the theatres had capacity between 100 and 200, I'd assumed it would be an even distribution 100-500.)Irvek (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seating capacity in parentheses is okay, I'd say. But, please, alphabetize the list. It's the only logical way to order it. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that this is encyclopedic information, since the key information/links are already given in the navbox below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done compiling the list of current theatres - unless I missed any, there's 62 currently operating. I can see how the chart is unwieldy, unless we add more information to each row. (Year built? Notable productions?) If we were to make a list, should we do it in two columns of 31 or three columns of 21? Irvek (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Row no longer uses Acorn, Lion, etc as the names of the theaters, accordingly Acorn Theater is no longer accurate, it is now Theater Three. Mx942 (talk)

Peter Jay Sharp Theater should be Peter Jay Sharp Theater at Playwrights Horizons so as not to confuse it with the Peter Jay Sharp Theater at Symphony Space (which could also be used as an off-Broadway theater). Mx942 (talk)

Just listing the off-Broadway theater spaces give an incomplete picture, we should endeavor to build a list of all off-Broadway companies, though such a list would be better served to have in a separate article. Mx942 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article title be Off-Broadway theatre, being that "off-Broadway" is an adjectival phrase specifying which type of theatre, the art form and venues, is the topic here? It would be in parallel with Broadway theatre (and West End theatre, for that matter). Off-Off-Broadway (theatre) should probably also be moved, too. oknazevad (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, based on WP:BROKE. Anyone searching for the topic can easily find it here. It seems like a make-work project to me. It would create thousands of links that point to redirects. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But redirects are WP:NOTBROKEN, so that's not an issue. It just really bothers me that this title is so ungrammatical. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Broadway is a genre as well as a destination. "I saw that play Off-Broadway"; and "It was an Off-Broadway play". WP:NAME says "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech", but some article names are not nouns. It was sneaky and offensive to open this discussion and then request a rename without notifying us here on the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make this clear. It's not a proper noun, so "off" should not be capitalized unless it's the beginning of a sentence or part of a proper name. Also, in terms of grammar, there should be no hyphen in your first example, as there it is a prepositional phrase; there it is describing a location by stating where it is not located (with the implicit understanding that it's still talking about New York). The correct style is "I saw that play off Broadway." As a compound adjective where it modifies a noun, it would be hyphenated, so "It played at an off-Broadway theatre" would be correct. That's why there is that incosistency in use that was noted in the above section of the talk page; there's actually two different uses going on here, and too much conflation between them. "Off Broadway" is not a genre, however. Comedies, dramas, straight plays, musicals, revues, dance; those are genres, and all can be found either on or off Broadway, and many times with the exact same show. "Off-Broadway theatre" is a class of theatrical production in New York defined by its venue size. Our title should include the word "theatre", as it is the necfessary noun. PS, would have responded earlier, but I was sleeping. oknazevad (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and have replied below in the new move discussion. We should name it as the sources write it, not based on your personal preference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I see it rendered "Off-Broadway"?

Naturally, I can understand it in the event that a sentence begins with the term but shouldn't it otherwise be "off-Broadway" since Broadway is the only portion that is a proper noun?

Or is there some other reasoning here? It seems contrary to the rules of the English language, no matter the dialect.

Cheers, 1980fast (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the above move request for the refs, but sources consistently capitalize the "Off" as "Off-Broadway" is not just a location or a category but also an artistic movement, which are conventionally capitalized. We follow the practice of the sources. oknazevad (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway are OK, unless you are specifically referring to the theatrical movement. This is a style question, not a ref question. If you look for refs with a small "o" you will find plenty. Ssilvers (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]