This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
Yes, indeed a merge is in order. I've no time to do it myself at this moment, though. Bit of a contradiction as to whether it's Egyptian or Phoenician style: my refs were pretty clear that it's the former. As for the name, I'd like to leave it to a third party such as Mtlskyline to decide whether the Cinema V or Empress name is more notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't read Shawn's message very well. Yes, indeed, perhaps Cinema V is more notable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, I think it's fine either way. I'd just turn Cinema V into a redirect, then. My only concern is the contradiction between Phonetician in the lead and Egyptian from the imported text. Can it truly be both? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The official website of the "Empress Cultural Centre" project describes it as follows: "Designed by the Montreal architect Alcide Chaussé and decorated by Emmanuel Briffa, the Empress has the proud distinction of being one of only five remaining art-deco theatre buildings in Canada, and the only one with an Egyptian theme." Perhaps there should be a mention of it as being Art Deco as well? I believe that a CTV news article was the only source that labeled it Phoenician. --MTLskyline (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Though I know The Canadian Encyclopedia is not strictly speaking WP:RS, it also identifies it as an Egyptian style theatre. It's pretty clear the CTV cite is the outlier. Also, since the Cinema V period has come and gone -- and only remembered by Generation Jonesers like me -- I'd support retaining Empress as the article name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
1. That's good enough for me. I suggest zapping the word Phoenician unless new info warrants its re-inclusion.
2. Also, since the content of this article is now redundant, can we replace it with a redirect?
3. If anyone is in the area with a camera, perhaps they've gussied-up the place and an updated photo is in order. And what of the interior? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)