Talk:MacDougal Street

	New York City portal 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.

U.S. Streets Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of streets in the United States 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.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The street is called Macdougal Street, not MacDougal Street

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See New York Times Style Guide.

I can't make this change in the article title, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.122.71 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. All but one of the external links in the article use "MacDougal", as does Google Maps (athough the Post uses both). Unfortunately, street signs are not helpful as they use capital letters only. Until the official spelling is cited, I suggest to return the spelling to "MacDougal" Street. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived on Macdougal Street for the past 45 years. There is only one capital letter, and it's the M. Really. Go to nytimes.com and do a search for articles containing the words "macdougal street." Capitalize it however you want. The results will all show the proper capitalization, "Macdougal." Also see this citation about the naming of the street, from 1910: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0912FD3D5C16738DDDA90994DA415B808DF1D3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.22.113 (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, the majority of external links in the article spell it "MacDougal". The NYT's occasional spelling of the general's name as "Macdougal" doesn't help its reliability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email response I received from a NY Times Editor, when I asked him about capitalization and spacing of a few place names in NYC: "I can tell you how we at The Times are supposed to do two of the items, according to the NYT Style Book (which, of course, is never wrong): La Guardia Airport. Macdougal Street (Greenwich Village); MacDougal Street (Brooklyn). Also, in Greenwich Village, Macdougal Alley." You may consider this hearsay, but the point is that the information in the article is incorrect, and by following the wrong example of the webpages linked to in the article, you are promulgating a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.22.113 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no authoritative spelling for that airport, but Wikipedia spells it "LaGuardia". You see, style guides are a dime a dozen and Wikipedia makes up its own. Personally and on the balance of probablities, I'd tend to the lowercase spelling as well, but I suggest the article should only be changed based on highly authoritative sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Google Maps, please. It's shown there correctly, as "Macdougal Street" (and "Macdougal Alley"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.22.113 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there are a number of sources using the lower case version, but there are also a similar number using uppercase; e.g. this Google search show mixed results, including uppercase usage by New York government sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. You're wrong. I live on Macdougal Street. I seriously question whether you've ever even been to Macdougal Street. But if you want it to be wrong on Wikipedia, then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.22.113 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe your assertions, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Verifiability trumps the truth. You may want to consult these pages: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research (and there expecially Primary, secondary and tertiary sources), Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Please provide a citable reliable source to support your assertion. And please, following the instructions below this edit window and at WP:SIGHOW, sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We go with what RS sources commonly call it. And street signs with its name are all caps, so of no help.[1] And "The May of ..." is with a capital D.[2] And the ale house is with a small D.[3]Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually... Google Maps says "Macdougal Street" and the NYCDOT map says... Mac Dougal Street? 22:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  - I blame the NYCDOT for not installing lowercase street signs earlier. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 22:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I filed a request within NYCDOT to fix the street signs on the street. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 02:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good, I'll be holding my breath waiting for results, so be sure to let us know as soon as they come in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The results are: No one really cares. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel that I need more information

about this statement or I will be inclined to remove it.

"This is also where Jimi Hendrix first became famous."

First became famous means what? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization again: Macdougal Street or MacDougal Street?

The official NYC Dept of Transportation street map gives the street as "Macdougal Street," which is how local residents and The New York Times tend to style it. (Street signs along the street are still in all-caps. Google Maps shows "Macdougal," but Bing Maps shows "MacDougal.)

NYC DOT map is at http://www.nycdot.info/ , then click "Location Search" in the bottom right and put in "MACDOUGAL ST" using any capitalization, and pick Manhattan. The result shows "Macdougal Street, New York, NY, USA" (although the map itself shows it as MAC DOUGAL ST).

So Macdougal it is, then.

Can somebody change the article's title? I don't know how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.10.105 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for the redirect at "Macdougal Street" to be deleted, so that the article can be moved there. So, soon, hopefully. BMK (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a great deal of the confusion comes in because the man the street is named after spelled his surname "McDougal", but his father spelled it "MacDougal". Nevertheless, misspellings of things (like streets) named after people is hardly unusual. If the NYCDOT, the New York Times, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission and a bunch of other reliable sources use it, who are we to argue? BMK (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, apropos of nothing except that surnames are often very mutable (and I'm reading a book about the subject), Adolf Hitler's father was "Hitler", but his father was "Hiedler" and others in the family tree were "Huttler". Ultimately, the name may have come from Czech "Hidlar" or "Hidlarcek". BMK (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the NYC DOT changed their records. According to a contribution above (22:43 21 June 2013), they used to spell it "Mac Dougal Street". But now, after discussing this for 2.5 years, peace will descend on the world – that is if everybody else, e.g. Bing maps, follow. Nitpick: "Hüttler", not "Huttler". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but for some reason I couldn't find the special Latin characters to do the "u" with the umlaut. I thought maybe they didn't come up on talk pages, but I see them now right under my edit box, so either something weird happened, or I was just temporarily (and very specifically) blinded. BMK (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done BMK (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and now, following https://nycstreets.net/public/permit/search, it's back to "MacDougal Street". However, my reading of that source is that they spell it "Mac Dougal St", so I'm not sure how reliable that source is, because an internal space in "Mac Dougal" is certainly not present on street signs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They" are the New York City Department of Transportation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that the street's name on the map is spelled "Mac Dougal St"? Should this article follow that spelling? Further, how does that square with 71.251.10.105's observation above that using http://www.nycdot.info/ shows "Macdougal St, New York, NY, USA" in the Location Search results? The accompanying map to that search result shows "MAC DOUGAL ST". In the light of these internal inconsistencies at the NYCDOT, I think it's only reasonable to question their reliability. I think the previous version ("Macdougal Street"), to which you agreed and implemented in June 2015, seems the least controversial. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter S. Thompson

Regarding the recently added, and then removed, reference to Hunter S. Thompson's article "The 'Hashbury' Is the Capital of the Hippies" in The New York Times on May 14, 1967: the complete paragraph, to give context, reads:

Most heads are relatively careful about their drug diets, but in recent months the area has attracted so many young, inexperienced hippies that public freak-outs are a fairly routine thing. Neighborhood cops complain that acidheads throw themselves in front of moving cars, strip naked in grocery stores and run through plate-glass windows. On weekdays, the action is about on par with Macdougal Street in Greenwhich Village, but weekend hippies and nervous voyeurs from the suburbs make Saturdays and Sundays a nightmarish traffic jam. The sidewalks are so crowded that even a mild freak-out is likely to cause a riot.

So he did mention Macdougal Street, but I don't think that amounts to a notable event "In literature". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed - reinstate?

The image removed is in Aberdeen Art Gallery, one of the early photographs from the late 19th century, and so 'visibility' cannot be judged by modern standards. It is atmospheric and a historical record. May the deletion please be reversed? Kaybeesquared (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image may be historical, but it conveys virtually no information to the reader, which is the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take a look at any of the many photographs from the Civil War in the US, around the mid 1860s - they are very easily visible, and have great impact because of it. Your photo is from thirty years later, so being "historical" is really no excuse for not being visible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to tweak the image in order to bring out the content - something I do quite often - but the result was still very poor, and still conveyed very little visual information. I'm afraid it's simply a poor photographic image and not suitable for here, unless someone more capable than I am can clean it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So others can see the images being discussed, below is the original image added to the article, which I reverted,and the cropped and cleaned version, which I still believe does not convey sufficient information to be added:

Original

Cropped and cleaned

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]