Jump to content

Talk:Madison Square and Madison Square Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arches at Madison Square

[edit]

The article currently claims that there were two temporary arches at Madison Square built in 1889. I can find mention of only one at in connection with Washington, and even there I'm not sure they don't mix up their facts.[1]

As far as I know, there were:

  • The original wood-and-plaster Washington Arch, located near the entrance of Washington Square Park on Fifth Avenue. That was nowhere near Madison Square. Built for the 1889 Washington Inauguration Centennial.
  • Possibly another temporary arch at Madison Square, for the same occasion (see above). Is there any confirmation of this arch?
  • Two temporary arches at Fifth avenue and 22nd and 59th street (the first would be close to Madison Square), constructed in 1892 for the 400-year anniversary of Columbus's discovery of America.[2]
  • The Dewey Arch, built 1899 at Fifth Avenue/24th street, demolished 1901.
  • The Victory Arch of 1918 also seems to have been located at Fifth Avenue/24th street.[3]

Any more? Lupo 15:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Arch

[edit]

"Victory Arch" is both a name and a description, hence the quotation marks. It is not "the" Victory Arch, because it is not extant. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes

[edit]

In this edit they were removed, but I don't see how they're unnecessary. If subway routes and stations are included, so should bus routes. 50.14.142.33 (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, let's take out the subway information as well. We're an encyclopedia not a tourist guiide - see WP:NOTGUIDE.

Incidentally, per WP:BRD when a Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor and then Discussion takes place, the article stays in the status quo ante while the discussion is ongoing, so I've reverted to the stable condition.

Now, here we are, make your case that this encyclopedia article screams out with the need to have bus information in it. BMK (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you're going to add transportation, don't do half a job and add subway stations that are over a block from the park, and neglect buses that stop across the street.
Second, hundreds of other NYC building and place articles include both subway and bus info.
Third, this information is supported by a reliable source (the MTA website).
Fourth, mentioning the buses and subways in the article is not travel-like. It's just showing the fact that there are both subway and bus stops nearby, which doesn't violate WP:NOTGUIDE in itself. By contrast, showng directions on how to get from point A to the park is violating WP:NOTTRAVEL – which is the exact policy that covers travel information. 50.14.142.33 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything supported by a reliable source is right for an encyclopedia article. All your other arguments simply reinforce that we shouldn't be adding transpo-cruft like bus routes, instead we should take out subway info. No other city that I'm aware of includes transportation information in their building articles. BMK (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are pretty much mistaken on what I am saying. There's a difference between adding directions to a place, which violates the guide policy, and adding which subway routes stop nearby, which is not a violation of the guide policy. Though, I have to admit, the buses do violate the guide policy, because there are more stops on bus routes than on subway routes; besides, most bus routes and bus stations dont have articles.
In that case, I'll just change the subway templates and add the bus reference, without adding the bus routes. The Manhattan bus maps shows the subway stops next to the park as well. 50.14.142.33 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand precisely what you are saying, it's just that I disagree with you. BMK (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

[edit]

I have changed the headings for conciseness and clarity:

  • "Early New York" → "In early New York" because it does not talk about early NY, just the park in early NYC
  • "The park opens" → "Opening" because it is shorter and doesn't sound like a storyline
  • "In the 20th century" → "20th century" because it is shorter and doesn't sound like a storyline
  • "Madison Square today" → "Today" because we all know what the subject is, and the title is shorter

Are there any objections to this? Epicgenius (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If "In early New York" is preferable to "Early New York", then "In the 20th century" is preferable to "20th century" for the sake of consistency. BMK (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so let's keep "In the 20th century". Or, we can still have just "20th century" for that section, and then rename "Early New York" to "Early days" because we know it's in NY already from the lede. Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madison Square. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seward images

[edit]

As much as I do love a game of "guess the reason for the revert with no edit summary and no talk page message," could you comment, Beyond My Ken, on why you prefer this image of the Seward statue over this one, considerably clearer/sharper.

If it is placement or cropping, these are the kinds of easy-to-fix things that make edit summaries so great. For example, since we have prose about this statue in particular, and because the other image of the old statue was under the "the park today" gallery (it is indeed part of the park today, as it was a century ago, and as are several other elements not included in that gallery) moving seemed like a good idea to me, but perhaps I am lacking context for why it was set up that way. And if it were to stay in that gallery, it would probably indeed make sense to pop over to the CropTool on Commons to make it a similar proportion to the others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a picture in the best place, in the gallery with other images of statues in the park. It did not need to be replaced, and it did not need to be moved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you prefer the location. Alright. That's a partial answer. It did not need to be replaced is nonsense unless you mean that in your judgment the image you restored is a higher quality image than the one you removed. As you're still requiring that I read into your edits to determine your motivations, I will guess that it's because you think it's aesthetically nicer to have an image of just the monument rather than the monument with the park scene to either side. Again, if that's the case, just say so in the edit summary, being what it's there for and it would take me 30 seconds to crop it to something that would still be a much higher quality image than what's there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at the image, and you are correct, it is better. I agree that you should go ahead and crop it and replace the current image in the gallery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to images in the article

[edit]

An editor has made major changes to the images in the article without prior discussion. Please compare their version [4] to the status quo ante version [5] and comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images in the gallery can definitely go, including the one of the parade, which doesn't add anything of significance. And, no, I'm not going to itemise the ones I'd like to see trimmed. – Seasider53 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about editorial decisions, so if you're not going to specify which images -- beside the pararde -- "can definitely go", it's really not much help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just delete the ones I think are extraneous, with that reason given, when I feel the need. A discussion on it won't be needed. - Seasider53 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, of course, another editor objects to your deletions, in which case a discussion will be needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Seasider53: Could you make those deletions one by one, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What, so we can have some "But sdnsfdfdbgjnbvdvd!!!one!, those images have been there since 1972!!!2@" rebuttals? (subst:xsign|19:09, 11 July 2021‎ Seasider53||
No, so if there is a dispute about a specific deletion, it can be addressed directly instead of being disentangled from an edit with multiple deletions. That seems like a reasonable request to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Say it ain't so! Here is an example. Example two. Found another. Seasider53 (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Today's gallery format came to be on June 21, 2010, so that will be the reason given why it should remain in its current state. Seasider53 (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to the deletion of specific images, as long as they are discussed. I object to wholesale deletion of images, no matter whose, without discussion. And, frankly, 11 years is nothing to sneeze at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, the original trimming of images didn't go far enough. There are 15 images outside of the gallery, which already seems excessive for the size of the article. I would recommend removal of the gallery section and all the images it contains. There could be discussions about whether some of the gallery images should replace some of the 15 other images, but those discussions can take place after the gallery is removed. To answer Beyond My Ken's argument about precedent; a consensus to retain something (or absence of consensus to remove something) only lasts as long as it takes for a new consensus to form. The length of time that the previous consensus existed has no bearing on the validity of a new consensus. You have invited neutral parties to the discussion and the consensus appears to be to remove the images. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 16 years here, I am certainly aware that WP:Consensus can change, but it cannot change unless there is a discussion to hash out any disputes, which is why I object to wholesale changes without discussiosn about them. I would also comment that discussions which don't deal with specifics are of little use, which is why I keep asking for specific objections to specific images instead of general comments. So far, these are slow in coming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here, specifically is that there were far too many images on the article for the amount of text. A level of balance is needed. As Rhododendrites notes below, a strict number for an image limit is not a good idea as there is a large grey area between where most editors would say "too few images," and where they would say "too many images." My personal view is that 4 is probably too few and 20 is too many for this size of article.
You may prefer to couch the discussion around defending the inclusion of individual images but there is no need for others to entertain that notion. If other editors engage with that type of discussion, then that is their choice, not a requirement.
You asked neutral parties to step in and confirm if they agreed with the original editor's actions. Don't be surprised if the answer you get to that specific question is, "yes."
When I looked at the article before, there were 29 images, which seemed excessive for the article length. Since then some images have been removed. I still think there is value in keeping the number of images below 20 but I have no preference on which ones are retained. As has been suggested already, you can make use of the Commons gallery feature if you have a large number of images you want to display to the audience. An alternative strategy would be to expand the text in the article; more text can be balanced by more images.
I won't be engaging with this article on a long term basis but as a response to the informal request for comment posted at the Wikiproject(s), I have given my view. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is for a large scale cull of images, you haven't offered any justification why they should be retained other than they've been there a long time, which has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of changes to give a single thumbs up or thumbs down. I will say that don't think we should set a fixed number of images or size for the gallery. I know some people really really don't like galleries in articles, and I agree when it's just an excuse to add redundant/superfluous pictures or things not discussed at all in the article, but here's my take: if something would make sense alongside the article text but we don't have enough space, I don't see a problem with using a gallery. The statues are a good example -- they're mentioned in the article and are prominent features of the park, so putting them all together doesn't seem like a bad idea. I see someone removed the Shake Shack picture. To be clear, it's not just some chain restaurant location -- it's the original location, a landmark with a wide area around it occupying much of the south part of the park.
    Here's a fun tangent: is it worth splitting the article into Madison Square and Madison Square Park? I haven't yet checked to see if this has been done before, but that would allow us to separate the photos of the park over time from the illustrations of the buildings which surround it, just as an example. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to add image

[edit]

An editor is attempting to add a image to the article's gallery. It is of a temporary exhibit from 2006-2007, 16 years ago by a relatively unknown artist. I object to this addition of several grounds:

  • The article has a sufficiency of images, and is not in need of another, especially this particular one;
  • It is an image of a temporary exhibit from 16 years ago, and does not illustrate the park as it currently is;
  • The artwork and the artist (Ursula von Rydingsvard) are relatively obscure;
  • The placement of the image seems promotional in nature.

I have requested that the editor not restore the image until they have a consensus here to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Quartette

[edit]

Performed at "Madison Square Roof Garden" per here. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madison_Square_and_Madison_Square_Park&oldid=1216412649"