Talk:Manhattan/Archive 2

Purchasing power of 60 guilders

Added a link to International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam for the calculation of the purchasing power of the fl 60,- expended to "buy" Manhattan - at http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/calculate.php 77.169.208.232 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

entry?

How many entry/exit points are there too the island of ManhattanIAmTheCoinMan (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)?[reply]

First off this is not a zombie quarantine zone.

According to this map the things that connect this island to the outside world are: the 4&5 train tunnel, the R train tunnel, the 2&3 train tunnel, the A/C train tunnel, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge or it's B/D/N/Q trains (4 tracks), the F train tunnel, the Williamsburg Bridge or it's J/M/Z trains (2 tracks), the L train tunnel, the Amtrak/Long Island Railroad train tunnel, the Queens-Midtown tunnel, the 7 train tunnel, the E/M train tunnel, the Queensboro Bridge, the Roosevelt Island tram, the N/Q/R train tunnel, the F train tunnel, the Ward's Island Bridge, the Triborough Bridge, the Willis Avenue bridge, the Third Avenue bridge, the 4/5/6 train tunnel, the Metro-North train bridge, the Madison Avenue bridge, the 2 train tunnel, the 145th Street bridge, the Macombs Dam bridge, the B/D train tunnel, the Alexander Hamilton bridge, the Washington bridge, the University Heights bridge, the Broadway Bridge or it's 1 train (3 tracks), the Henry Hudson bridge, the Amtrak train bridge, the George Washington Bridge, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Amtrak/New Jersey Transit train tunnel, the PATH train tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the other PATH train tunnel, the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, 13 different ferry terminals, the 79th Street boat basin (if you own a boat there), the 3 heliports, and the Passenger Ship Terminal. Count them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, while aren't counted Manhattan couldn't survive without the shadow entries of water, natural gas, electric, and sewer which aren't ever shown. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I think the population of the county for 2000 should be put in the infobox (not just a 2008 estimate). (I cannot edit the box correctly myself.) The 2000 population should be put in the first paragraph of the article, replacing the 2008 estimate. hello (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I kind of see this article as a borderline case in terms of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.95 (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you suggest? There are about a zillion sources that confirm the sunjects noatbility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)

I assume that's an attempt at humor. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Width of city block

Page lists width of city block "avenue side" as 600 feet, but this is plainly not the case. In fact, it conflicts with the Wikipedia entry on "city block," which says it's 900 feet. As a walking New Yorker, I suspect the true length is 900 feet, and this can be verified on Google maps. 71.4.254.124 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figures in infobox

Could someone with access to the right statistics please check the area, population and population density figures in the infobox. I can't get the math to work and think one of the figures must be wrong. Sidefall (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYC Panorama edit2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:NYC Panorama edit2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 11, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

A stitched panoramic view of western Manhattan, the oldest and the most densely populated of the five boroughs of New York City, as seen in February 2009 from across the Hudson River in Hoboken, New Jersey. The view spans more than 20 miles (32 km) of skyline. Highlights from left to right include the George Washington Bridge, Riverside Church, the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, the spire of the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, the World Financial Center, and the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.Photo: Jnn13/LiveChocolate

Archive – More featured pictures...

Coordinates

There are two different coordinates on this page that are given for Manhattan. The topmost one is in the middle of Central Park. The other one, lower down, is located at the intersection of Broadway and 4th Street. Shouldn't these both be the same? What is the geographic center of Manhattan's boundaries? Several sites give 40° 42' 51" N, 74°0' 23" W as the center of New York City, but that is not the center of Manhattan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danallen46 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest island with more than 1 million people

Acc to Final Jeopardy a few days ago, Manhattan is the smallest island with more than 1 million people - a status it has had since 1890--JimWae (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hurricane sandy does not rate it's own heading under history

hurricane sandy does not rate it's own heading under history, especially if the great one of '38, which caused even greater flooding and a 100% power failure to the whole city, is not even mentioned at all in the article. Snertking (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Manhattan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Manhattan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nhlsum":

From Central Park: "Central Park". National Historic Landmark summary listing. National Park Service. September 10, 2007.
From Empire State Building: "Empire State Building". National Historic Landmark summary listing. National Park Service. September 11, 2007. Archived from the original on 2011-08-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Chrysler Building: "Chrysler Building". National Historic Landmark summary listing. National Park Service. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
From Brooklyn Bridge: "Brooklyn Bridge". National Park Service.
From New York City: "Holland Tunnel". National Historic Landmark Quicklinks. National Park Service. Retrieved March 22, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement Date

How can the article claim a settlement date of 1624 and then begin by saying it was long inhabited by the Lenape people? 69.127.113.240 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East, Hudson and Harlem rivers

I attempted to correct this phrase by changing "Rivers" to "rivers," since the three rivers exist independently of one another and so their names do not apply to the rivers collectively. Apparently an automatic program reverted this change, and I have no idea how to complain about it, except here. My correction was absolutely proper. Rontrigger (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Alley industries

Industry insider websites and various citation sources have indicated that Silicon Alley, centered in Manhattan, has evolved into high tech industries focusing on the Internet, new media, telecommunications, digital media, software development, game design, and other fields within information technology. There may be other high tech industries, but currently they are not considered part of Silicon Alley. Biotechnology is completely separate from Silicon Alley.

National Venture Capital Association provides statistics about venture capital investments in the NY metropolitan area. Its cited sources (Industry Stats By Date: Venture Capital Investments Q2 2014 – MoneyTree Results (Regional Data)) do NOT distinguish which industries, including Silicon Alley, receive these investments in the NY metropolitan area.

While centered mostly in Lower Manhattan, Silicon Alley is also in other parts of Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn (Widening Tech 'Alley' Outgrows Its Name: Label Is Giving Way to References to Submarkets like Chelsea, Flatiron/Madison Square)

If anyone has suitable sources to update this information, please provide it.67.84.204.32 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did source it and you reverted it, which I'm about to fix. You're a tough customer, but I also believe you're exhibiting some bad faith here. First of all, "Silicon Alley" in the New York Area is exactly analogous to "Silicon Valley" in the San Francisco Bay Area. There is no difference whatsoever between the two vis-a-vis definition or applicability, other than the U.S. coast in question. Are you saying that Silicon Valley somehow does not encompass biotechnological startups or enterprises? That's silly, there are many. Tech is tech, and for you to somehow remove biotech from that sphere is artificial. To say that the biotechnology industry is part of the pharmaceutical industry is also frivolous! - you obviously are unaware that the established Big Pharma industry is actually at odds with its biotech counterparts in terms of patenting, etc. The venture capital investment citation by the NVCA for Silicon Valley on its website is a legitimate citation, so why would the same not hold true for Silicon Alley? Furthermore, the NVCA citation includes the city of San Francisco as part of Silicon Valley's total, which actually represents a wide swath of Northern California's Bay Area. Silicon Alley represents an entrepreneurial sphere and a state of mind more than a place per se. Nomenclatures expand and evolve over time. But most pertinently here, the decidedly reliable Business Insider citation which I quoted clearly and unequivocally equates (multiple times) Silicon Alley definitively with New York's tech ecosystem, period. This means that any quotable technology company, whether biotech, internet tech, or other tech, is fair game to be mentioned as a part of the metonym known as Silicon Alley, just as Wall Street is a metonym for a variety of corporate and financial interests, and not just the securities industry. Finally, for whatever bizarre reason, you seem intent on withholding legitimate and informatively valuable venture capital investment numbers in the Silicon Alley/New York area ecosystem, and this is absolutely unacceptable. For the above reasons, I am reverting your edit, and now the ball is in your court to prove (which you cannot) why biotechnology would artificially be categorized separately from all other technological industries. Castncoot (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bad faith on my part as I have requested Castncoot to address their proposed updates in Talk prior to making further edits about this topic since Castncoot continually rejects my updates, which are supported by cited sources. I try to update or modify relevant details by Castncoot based on cited sources, when applicable.

Castncoot finally added a citation that better reflects on the make-up of the different types of Silicon Alley companies. I updated the article based on this citation. It makes no reference to biotechnology companies.

Castncoot reversed everything in my latest update, including a legitimate citation source, correction to a url, and proper copy editing, and then tries to partially justify it in this Talk, even though I have repeatedly requested that Castncoot justify everything proposed first, allow me to respond, and then modify later based on mutual agreement. If needed, a scalpel is better than a hatchet.

Wikipedia articles are not about what authors think must be correct based on their extrapolation of published information. It is about what published sources provide about the topic. Using transitive logic to try and equate two different industries on the West Coast and East Coast seems to be Original Research without any published sources. There is not a single biotechnology company listed in the Top 100 Silicon Alley companies from the cited source.

Feel free to add biotechnology in the general Economy section of this article based on cited sources. Include it as part of Silicon Alley if it is cited. Pharmaceutical companies own many biotechnology companies so that they are intertwined.

The NVCA citation provides a separate entry for Silicon Valley. It does not provide a separate entry for Silicon Alley. The make-up of Silicon Ally industries/companies is different from Silicon Valley. To infer that Silicon Alley encompasses all of the NY Metro area investments is Original Research.67.84.204.32 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now included the total amount for venture capital investment for various industries, which also includes Silicon Alley, in the NY City metro area for first half of 2014 as per the cited source.67.84.204.32 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reporting of the timeline here is not accurate. The reason that I deleted the source you provided is that it requires registration to access the full reference, which not everybody can readily do. Therefore, I for one am still unable to access its content. What I do see of most pertinent interest is the title, "Widening Tech 'Alley' Outgrows Its Name," which actually supports my point and not yours. In the meantime, I'm willing to meet you in the middle here and go along with your latest edit. I've also added an entirely separate statement and citations about biotechnology as you suggested, although I still maintain (and the new sources support) that biotechnology is a part and parcel of technology and not an extrapolation. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

population

should we include that the population of manhattan (1,626,159) is approximately 12% of new york state's total population (19,651,127)? i think that could be useful information. let me know. GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Queens and Brooklyn's populations are about 16% of NY's population apiece. This borders on WP:TRIVIA. My opinion is that the fact should not be included. Epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with it; I do agree that it could be useful, to give the reader an idea what percentage of the State's demographic statistics (such as per capita income or its ethnic composition) is being influenced by the borough. Epic, you could also consider doing the same for Queens and Brooklyn (although Brooklyn is larger than Queens, hence both cannot be 16%). Castncoot (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Castncoot: I miscalculated, my apologies. 12% for Brooklyn, 11% for Queens. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12% for Manhattan, that's not correct, GoGatorMeds - it's 8.3% of the State's population and 19.3% of the City's population as of July 2013. Stated and cited in article. Thanks for calculating Queens' and Brooklyn's data points, Epic. We'd need the data points per percentages of the city's 2013 population as well. If you believe they would go well in those respective articles, that would be great, or I can put them in when I get a chance. Castncoot (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Infobox?

It'd be nice if the island's characteristics were included in the info box like larger pieces of geography. One question I don't have answered, is what's the tallest point/highest natural elevation on Manhattan Island? ie: is global warming going to take out the *whole* island, or just most of it?
~ender 2010-04-12 21:50:PM MST

What is the size of the whole island (and not just the borough)? The map of the whole island, etc. are also missing. 88.192.19.110 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long will the nice new "fuller" shots of Manhattan stand?

This article, NYC, and all its borough articles have a long history of users scrubbing any images that seem to capture the fullness and denseness of NYC such as these:

<----

So enjoy them while you can.. because wikipedians are persistent about deleting larger fuller scope images of NYC and confining it only to smaller scope photos such as this:

--->

--108.50.170.32 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Schlegel - George Degen - New York 1873.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:George Schlegel - George Degen - New York 1873.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 15, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-12-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

An aerial view of Manhattan in 1873, with Battery Park in the foreground and the Brooklyn Bridge under construction at the right. After the American Civil War concluded in 1865, New York saw an influx in immigration from European countries looking for a new life in the United States. However, the squalid conditions and low wages allowed these immigrant communities to become hotbeds of revolutionary ideas.Engraving: George Schlegel; restoration: Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

Photo feedback requested

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In as much as there is a consensus, it is no. 1 by a whisker, but I think it would be fair to say that this is not so much a consensus as an overwhelming vote of "meh". A better picture will very probably find rapid agreement, should one be offered. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to request for feedback

~~Looking for feedback regarding lead, BMK please refrain from tainting the request, we already know what your vote is. Thank you!~~ talk→ WPPilot 07:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WPP, no, I will not refrain from participating in a discussion that any editor can take part in. Besides, if I didn;t comment, no one would know that photo #1 was the lede image until you replaced it with photo #2, which is your photograph. I reverted that, on the grounds that your photograph did not adequately represent Manhattan in a way that was appropriate for a lede image, and that, therefore, the original image was superior. BMK (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then to the other editors, try to overlooks BMK's biases (tainting the request) and just pick one of the photos. I think the fist one is too low and does not get the entire scope of the place, BKM has a opinion about everything. I am looking for yours, as a UN BIASED editor on the site. Looking forward to hearing from you all. Thank you! talk→ WPPilot 07:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm "biased", but one of the images is yours, and the other isn't mine. Hmmm... BMK (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes you have already made it clear that you do not like my photos by your actions as well as your words. Please let others chime in and try not to dominate everything. Thanks~~ talk→ WPPilot 08:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, and I was trying to REMOVE bias from the equation. Notice that I did not put that anyone was the creator. Why do you feel editors need that info to make a choice on what is a better photo? talk→ WPPilot 08:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions, regardless of what has gone on previously in the discussion. BMK (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~You just have a inert need to tell them that I took one of the photos first, so that helps them make up there mind, is that correct?~~talk→ WPPilot 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that you should have told people in order to be perfectly transparent about everything. You say something like:

"There's a dispute about which of these two images is best for the article. Editor X prefers photo 1, which was the lede image until I replaced it with photo 2, which happens to be one of my own. Regardless of that, I think photo 2 is superior for reason 1, reason 2 and reason 3, while photo 1 is not as good for reason 4, reason 5 and reason 6. Please comment on which image you think is better for the article."

That puts all the cards on the table and allows people to comment knowing precisely what the situation is, instead of denying them the fact that you have a conflict of interest in regard to one of the images. BMK (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial photo #1

Aerial photo #2

Image from when article became GA

At the risk of getting a lecture, what's wrong with the picture used when the article attained GA status? [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with that image at all. BMK (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. I !vote to restore that picture. @WPPilot:, please stop replacing the lead pictures in such highly viewed New York City articles, or as a matter of fact, any highly viewed articles, without discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius you were the one that put it here, your comment is funny! Would you like me to remove my photos from all NY locations too? talk→ WPPilot 16:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the GA image in the lineup ~~to the right~~ above, so a direct comparison can be made. I slightly prefer #1 because it gives more of a sense of the geography of lower Manhattan, but #3 (GA photo) shows more of the skyscraper ensemble, so either seems fine to me. BMK (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WPPilot: I'd looked these pictures over before putting it in the appropriate sections of the article. I did not remove them. Now, I am politely requesting not that you don't add photos, but just to not put them as the very first picture in the lead, as these pictures, honestly speaking, aren't exactly the best quality. (No offense.) Epicgenius (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epic you were the one that placed MY aerial photo on the Manhattan page, please use it now to place where the sun does not shine and do not contact me in any way, again. Thank you. talk→ WPPilot 00:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WPPilot: please use it now to place where the sun does not shine and do not contact me in any way, again You can now withdraw your personal attacks, please. Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support keeping photograph 1. Op47 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell if photo 1 was run through filters? [2] I like the colors but my preference is always for a unfiltered (i.e., unInstagrammed) shot for Wikipedia articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I dunno. They're all perfectly acceptable choices, and it's difficult to choose between them. My preference would be #3, #1, and #2, in that order. But any one of them would be fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think #1 is prettier, then #2 and #3. But utility-wise, #3 is the most useful. Epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want the lights in the windows from #3 but the wider perspective of #1 and since this is Manhattan I am also obligated by longstanding agreements made in my distant past to ask for a pony, which I suspect is about as likely. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since Legobot summoned me here... Starting at the right (GA image) and working to the left. GA image is just okay, as I can make out one landmark building and that's about it. It's kind of foggy and not very crisp. Image #2 has too much water front and no obvious landmark buildings to me. Image #1 has a few building I can make out as landmark buildings and has the crispest wide view of the city/skyline from the three offered. My !vote is for image #1. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My Preferences, in descending order: #3, #1, and least of all #2. No one associates the image of Manhattan with docks and piers; they are particularly dreary and ugly. Please don't use that one. Best to restore the GA one, in my mind. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like Image #1 best, mainly because it gives a wider picture of Manhattan Island. #3 is also good if you want the skyscrapers being the main focus, but I'm not too fond of #2 for some reason. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 00:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Manhattan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Manhattan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WorldEconomicAndFinancialSuperCenter":

From Wall Street: "Top 8 Cities by GDP: China vs. The U.S." Business Insider, Inc. July 31, 2011. Retrieved June 22, 2014.
From New York City: "Top 8 Cities by GDP: China vs. The U.S." Business Insider, Inc. July 31, 2011. Retrieved June 22, 2014.
"PAL sets introductory fares to New York". Philippine Airlines. Retrieved December 10, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Campuses

(copied from my talk page)
Hi, in Manhattan, on the "Eduacation and scholarly activites" section, could you please change " Yeshiva University, and a part of Hofstra University and Fordham University campuses. " to "Yeshiva University, Fordham University, and a part of Hofstra University campus." According to Fordham's website, it has two main campuses [3]. Fordham has an 8 acre campus in Manhattan that includes general undergraduate Fordham college [4], both graduate and undergarduate business schools [5], School of law, School of social work, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, School of Continuing and Professional Studies and School of Education.[6]. Its a full campus with many buildings. As for Hofstra, they have executive MBA classes inside a room at Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital in Manhattan.[7] That might not be classified as a campus.--EliteSchoolKid (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EliteSchoolKid Definition of campus is at Campus. Hofstra itself only says it has the main campus. Having some classes available elsewhere is not a campus. Unless there is a ref from Hofstra that says they have a campus in Manhattan, no mention of campus in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Manhattan campus, so it shouldn't be mentioned, I agree. Epic Genius (talk) ± 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They is indeed a NYC campus for Hofstra. They've been offering the MBA and other classes for over a year now. [8] [9] [10] AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classes is different from a campus. One can teach some classes, but not on a campus of the University. One needs to show that it is an actually campus. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A campus is somewhere to learn and educate. Where there are Hofstra employees and students. Checks all the marks. Even if you don't agree Hofstra should still be mentioned because it does offer these programs and classes in Manhattan NYC. Its under higher education and scholarly acticity , seems to fit.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The school itself doesn't describe the facility from which it offers the Manhattan MBA program as a "campus", so it's a bit of a reach to characterize it as such here. JohnInDC (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hofstra's rented rooms are definitely not a campus. They rent some rooms in a hospital; that's all. By the way, some of the other institutions in the list/paragraph only have one (a subsidiary) of their campuses in Manhattan; these should be re-worded as the Fordham information is. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the Merriam-Webster definition for campus: 1. the grounds and buildings of a university, college, or school; 2. a university, college, or school viewed as an academic, social, or spiritual entity. Because the university rents, but doesn't own any grounds or properties in Manhattan, it is not a campus. Epic Genius (talk) ± 02:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current picture of Manhattan is ugly

One of the ugliest pictures of Manhattan I've ever seen. Please change to this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manhattan_Picture.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a copyvio taken from page 10 of this publication: http://www.myriam-hyron.fr/travaux/pr-creativite.pdf JohnInDC (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted from Commons. JohnInDC (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 28 external links on Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102013419/http://www.newsday.com/about/ny-ihiny011405story,0,2798382.htmlstory to http://www.newsday.com/about/ny-ihiny011405story,0,2798382.htmlstory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York City articles missing geocoordinate data

Category:New York City articles missing geocoordinate data is now down to 83 articles with missing geocoordinate data. While a few more may be done by hard work on the Internet, others could be done by editors on the ground. Public art can be done with GPS cameras. (i.e. Alexander Lyman Holley (sculpture)) Historic buildings can be done with old paper maps. (i.e. African Free School) Help is needed from New Yorkers, especially Manhattanites.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology: Manahachtanienk

According to some sources the name Manhattan comes from “Manahachtanienk“ which means “place where we all got drunk“^[1]. I have no idea if this is an urban myth or based on facts but maybe someone has reliable sources to prove or disprove it. Nonetheless I guess even if it is only an urban legend it is worth mentioning. Ogmios (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/nutmeg-new-netherland1.htm

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on Manhattan. 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) 16:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Manhattan. 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) 22:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The City?

This doesn't make sense. Just because some people in the general area of New York use "the city" when they happen to be heading in the direction of Manhattan, that doesn't make it a nickname for Manhattan. "Big Apple" for New York works because there it clearly means New York. But, I've never heard a Manhattanite say "I'm from The City" when asked where they're from in Paris or London. --regentspark (comment) 13:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The City is a heavily used moniker to describe Manhattan locally in the highly populous New York area – you may not be aware of that. Castncoot (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and I'll offer another way of looking at the question of Manhattan being "the city". I have always found it hilarious when someone in, say, Forest Hills says that they're hopping on the E train and heading into the city; I always respond that you can save the trip, you're already there. Then again, these same people will saying that if they're heading from Forest Hills to Nassau County that they're going out to the island; again, they're already there. The question to resolve here is all of Manhattan "the city", or just some part of it? If I go to the City College campus, am I in "the city". What about a trip to the Apollo Theater? Or to Columbia Presbyterian or Washington Heights or the Cloisters?
It seems to me based on the sources available (and my own personal experience) that when people refer to "the city" that the area from Midtown to the Battery is definitely intended / included in this definition, the Upper East Side and Upper West Side might well be included and that as you head north of Central Park it's outside the definition.
To extend the argument made by RegentsPark, "the city" is primarily used by suburbanites and outer-borough residents to refer to parts of Manhattan. It's certainly never used by residents of Manhattan. Alansohn (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ there. People do say, "How long are you staying in the City?" Castncoot (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly found it jarring bolded and in the 1st sentence of the lede. I've demoted it in prominence, presenting it in a separate 2nd sentence as an independent factoid rather than as a bona fide nickname for the borough. See if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gould363 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it. I believe that you've phrased it ideally. Castncoot (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Everyone says "the city" for the nearest large city. By that logic, Cleveland, Detroit, LA, all have the nickname "The City". Makes approximately zero sense. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is decidedly incorrect. Almost nobody ever uses "The City" to describe L.A., for example. And nowhere else uses the term "The City"' as prevalently to describe the urban core as in NYC (Manhattan) or (City of) London. A source has been added to Manhattan's case, and this is the only article of concern here. Castncoot (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment that Manhattan is not by itself referred to "the city". It is only really used in that fashion from the immediate metro area, meaning the four boroughs, and only then because the outer boroughs are less densely populated. Even from just outside city limits, one could argue that they really do mean NYC proper when they say The City. It can refer to either Manhattan or entire NYC in that sense. 100.12.206.41 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that NYC cannot also be referred to as The City. As the cited source notes, many people absolutely refer to Manhattan as The City, however. Not everyone, but a significant number, and in fact, the vast majority of people who responded to the poll. So it beats threshold criteria by a mile in a New York minute. Castncoot (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a usage that's very common in the outer boroughs, and even in the upper reaches of Manhattan, used synonymously with "Downtown": "I'm going downtown", "I'm going into the city".

And apropos of the general subject, but not specifically about Manhattan, I have always been struck by the scene in The Maltese Falcon, where Bogart puts the baggage claim ticket for the parcel he's just checked (the black bird) into an envelope and addresses it simply as "Box XXXX / City". Obviously, at the time, that was sufficient address to get it to his post office box in San Francisco, "the City" for that area. These usages change very slowly over time. It's been 119 years since the creation of Greater New York City, but downtown and midtown Manhattan are still referred to locally as "the city". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Castncoot (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I'm out voted on this though I don't really see a local reference to a city as translating into a nickname because, it then follows (as the night follows the day ...), that every major metropolis in the English speaking world will have the same nickname. And I note that "The City" is a nickname for the City of London as well on Wikipedia so I guess we have to live with a multipli(city) of the city(s). :) It would be nice, though, if we could get a better reference than a fluff piece in the gothamist (that doesn't actually answer its own question categorically).--regentspark (comment) 21:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Manhattan. 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) 23:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

data

the whites has rised while the non-hispanic whites and the hispanics declined. How can it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown South

Is Midtown South a bona fide region of Manhattan, and is it appreciable in the image below?

Colliers International, one of the biggest global commercial real estate services firms, believes it is, as is seen on on pages 8 and 10 of this file to the extent that the firm compiles intricate real estate research and statistics on Midtown South separately from Midtown. Clearly there is a large geographic swath between Midtown and Downtown, and that has come to be known as Midtown South. I belive it is visualized adequately in this image, south of the Empire State Building, while User:Alansohn believes this. Given that this article is Manhattan, and not New York City, I feel it would be remiss not to describe such a significantly large geographic area of Manhattan, and I believe that the best (and perhaps only) way to illustrate this relatively low-rise area is to show it aerially between Midtown and Downtown. Do people support or oppose inclusion of Midtown South in the caption of this image on the page which otherwise mentions the Empire State Building and One World Trade Center? Castncoot (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Support, for the above reasoning. Castncoot (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 3.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 3.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 25, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

A panoramic view of Lower Manhattan as seen at dusk from Jersey City, New Jersey, in November 2014. Manhattan is the most densely populated borough of New York City. It is the city's economic and administrative center, and a major global cultural, financial, media, and entertainment center.Photograph: Tony Jin

Archive – More featured pictures...

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Manhattan. 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) 03:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan. 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) 11:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAR request

I am going through the old GA requests and one was requested for this article in March 2017. The edit summary was worst GA I've seen-some lacks of refs, huge/many imgs, ed section just a list, poor fmt, etc.. As someone who has been dealing with lots of GA requests I can safely say it is far from the worst GA I have ever seen. Normally I would just remove the request, but this is a big, important article so thought I would give Ɱ a chance to elaborate. Remember it must be judged against the WP:GACR. Images, formatting and presence of lists do not necessarily disqualify an article from Good Status. Personally I have some issues with the size of the article, but it falls (just) within acceptable limits. I dislike the puffery in the lead, but it is not as bad as it has been on other similar articles. Overall I think it is fine to keep its status. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought there are issues with the lead that do need fixing. The lead should summarise the article and it doesn't do that very well at all. It has one throwaway sentence on the history, very little on geography and demographics. This is a good article criteria and will need to be fixed. It should be relatively easy one, but it will mean some information will need to be removed so the lead does not become excessive. AIRcorn (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep consensus. See discussion below for more information Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article through the GAR request template added a year ago by Ɱ.[11] My first thoughts was that it was a pretty good article, in fact I still think it is a pretty good article. However there are major issues with the lead. I detailed these thoughts on the talk page before opening the reassessment (Talk:Manhattan#GAR request). To clarify, part of the Good Article criteria is that the article complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Unfortunately this one does not meet the lead requirement as it does not summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If we divide the articles body up by percentage we have roughly.

Entymology 1%
History 16%
Geography 22%
Landscape 9%
Economy 11%
Education 4%
Culture 6%
Sport 5%
Government 8%
Housing 2%
Industry 16&

Now the lead does not have to match this exactly, but when one sentence (~4% of the lead) covers the history the appropriate weight is wrong. Geography is also under represented. By comparison over 25% of the lead revolves around the economy. Outside the infobox in some cases there is no information on geology, climate, government or infrastructure.

There is also a lot of cites in the lead, a red flag for unique information added that is not in the body. Of these 28 are not repeated in the body.

Another issue is the WP:Puffery. Sentences like Manhattan is often described as the cultural, financial, media, and entertainment capital of the world and New York City has been called both the most economically powerful city and the leading financial center of the world don't really belong in the lead as written. I have come across worse in New York articles and would probably overlook this if it wasn't rated a Good Article. It would probably be alright if this was mentioned in the actual body of the article by expanding on these descriptions. You could argue that articles from The New York Times describing New York as the foo capital of the world are biased, but seeing as we use described it is not so bad.

There may be other issues, but to my mind the major issue is the lead and if that is sorted I will be happy. However, if other editors want to bring up additional issues then they are welcome.

Note: Usually I conduct these reviews as individual assessments, but I have conflicted with a major editor of this article in the past, so thought it best to keep this as a community review. AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Good Article. I agree that we could buff up the History section some more. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with article's GA status. It's on par with other city GA articles, even though technically Manhattan is a borough of NYC. Castncoot (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Good Article. I think that Aircorn may be applying Featured article standards this GA. While not perfect, I think that the article is well-written, well-cited, has broad coverage, is NPOV, is stable, and has images (if anything, too many images). Those are the criteria for a GA and I believe that it easily passes. —hike395 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am definitely applying the Good Article criteria. I was very careful to link this above, but will do so again.

Criteria 1b says complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation (bolding mine)

WP:LEAD says summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight

My argument is that it does not follow WP:LEAD and therefore does not meet the Good Article Criteria 1b. Remember this is not a !vote, so it has to be shown that it currently does meet this criteria, or fixed so that it does. AIRcorn (talk)

It is not a !vote, but there has to be consensus to change a longstanding status, like with any other issue in Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've buffed up the historical content in the lead and added an important geographical feature. I would like to emphasize this time, however, that Manhattan is not a city but rather the core borough of NYC, and there is only a limited amount of geographical discussion that can take place in the lead about a 22+ square mile subset of any city. The human element of the borough is predominant. Castncoot (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the only substantial problem is the lead, it would be pretty easy to sort it out. However, there are also a bunch of unsourced sentences and paragraphs, which makes me hesitant to !vote "Keep". I like what Castncoot has done so far, but some more improvement is needed to the prose, especially regarding the sourcing. Complicating the matter, the "unsourced" sections I'm referring to are sentences like Some of the best known New York City public high schools are located in Manhattan, including Beacon High School, Stuyvesant High School, Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School, High School of Fashion Industries, Eleanor Roosevelt High School, NYC Lab School, Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics, Hunter College High School, and High School for Math, Science and Engineering at City College. Bard High School Early College, a hybrid school created by Bard College, serves students from around the city. Obviously if you searched all these high schools you'd know they are in Manhattan, but then we run the risk of WP:CITEKILL. epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, I like what you have done with trimming some of the outdated material from the article so far. If you could please also do the same with fixing as per what you've described just above with the Education section (and/or other sections), that would also be appreciated. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Education: I don't think it's necessary to provide sources to support that these schools are in Manhattan; the objectionable part is "best known". That could easily be corrected by using "Some of the notable New York City public high schools …" because they are notable as they have Wikipedia articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think all of the issues with the lead have been fixed sufficiently. Some of the outdated material may have to be trimmed as well, but it is well-sourced. epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist until or unless all of the above-noted necessary changes are made, in order to comply with WP:GACR. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article complies; if there's a disagreement, let's address it. Castncoot (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the basis for the GAR, namely does the LEAD meet GA criterion. I am coming to it post any changes Castncoot made. I think the history paragraph that has been added adequately addresses that concern. As for the puffery, I think the two phrases of concern are Manhattan is often described as the cultural, financial, media, and entertainment capital of the world and New York City has been called both the most economically powerful city and the leading financial center of the world. For the cultural, etc while there are five RS most of them basically seem to be New York sources or people calling New York that. I think perhaps with some different sourcing this phrase could be saved and does provide important context. For the comment about being called the most economically powerful I don't think the LEAD really loses anything if that close is removed. Ideally those are both fixed but their mere presence wouldn't be enough to remove GA status. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at least one of the sources does quote Manhattan specifically and not just New York. The remainder of the sources are still valid because the article makes clear that Manhattan is the multi-dimensional core of NYC. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there has been no comments in 4 weeks and my status as UNINVOLVED per the Guidelines for community reassessment discussion (as I've only participated in the GAR review process and did not nominate it for GAR) I am judging consensus to be keep. Because I did weigh in on the topic, despite this action being OK by the guidelines, I wish to give other editors a chance to either further discuss the article or disagree with my reading of consensus before I formally close it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan vs. Manhattan Island

Why does Manhattan Island not have its own article? I know this has been touched on in previous discussion sections, but I could not find a clear reason. The borough and island are not coextensive. Just as the political entity and island are distinguished in the case of Ireland (the Republic of Ireland and Ireland, respectively), as well as the historical political entity and island of Great Britain (the Kingdom of Great Britain and Great Britain, respectively), so the political entity and island of Manhattan should be distinguished. If they were coextensive with each other, then the merge would make sense, but they are not. Thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo feedback requested withdrawn

please remove me from this conversation Beyond My Ken mekes me sick, and I have no desire to continue to be exposed to him in any way, please do not force me to interact with him this conversation is as far as I am concerned over, please disregard my comments concerns or my photo, I would rather it not be used, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 19:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maps in all 5 boroughs' articles

For context this has to do with recent map removals in this article, as well as the Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island articles.

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I'm opening this discussion because it seems other editors, e.g. Alansohn and Castncoot, may find the maps of New York state, the USA, and Earth to be helpful. Would it be better if we used an interactive map using {{maplink}} (drawing the boundaries of each borough using JSON and then placing it as a mapframe map within the infobox)? That way people could zoom in or out as they wish. epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alansohn stated it best in the Talk:Queens edit summary – that these are constructive maps which help the readers in the context of global standalone articles about significant entities. Castncoot (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but a map of New York City is repeated information as there is already a map of NYC above. IWI (chat) 20:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and Castncoot:Also I did NOT remove the map of New York State. IWI (chat) 20:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that in this edit and this edit, you did remove the state map. Doesn't really matter much to me personally (I'd rather have an interactive map, now that it's possible to actually do so), but I wanted to point out the fact. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius:Nope. I didn’t remove the state maps in either. Look more closely. IWI (chat) 22:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my bad, but still doesn't hurt to have the other maps as well. epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in agreement EXCEPT for the pushpin map of New York City, which is a duplicate of the map above. IWI (chat) 22:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius- you're the tech savvy one- can you make interactive maps of each of the boroughs, and maybe even of the whole city, below the pushpin map? Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Castncoot: I think so. I'll look to see if there are any freely licensed JSON maps online. epicgenius (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I wondered what you were talking about, sorry that's my eyesight (last reply that I reverted) Yes Epicgenius, that would be helpful. IWI (chat) 08:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map

@ImprovedWikiImprovment and Castncoot: OK, here's a map of New York City, using a Wikipedia KML file (Template:Attached KML/New York City). It's a proof of concept. Should we do this for other borough articles? epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Castncoot and Epicgenius:Yes and they should replace the pushpin maps. IWI (chat) 13:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get to these soon. epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think we finally have an agreement here, and this should represent a significant improvement. Castncoot (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. IWI (chat) 08:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment and Castncoot: I've added maps to all five boroughs' articles. Let me know if anything needs adjusting. I'm aware that the maps aren't centered and will fix that later. epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, except for what you mentioned, I can't see an issue. IWI (chat) 19:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Epicgenius, will also re-caption them as now they are no longer tethered within New York City, and to clarify to the reader that these are now interactive. Castncoot (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I was eventually able to load the interactive map of the whole city onto the city article. Castncoot (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious error in article

Infobox says the county is 22.83 square miles (land), article says the island is 22.7 square miles. How did Wards, Randalls, Roosevelt, Governors, Liberty, Mill Rock, U Thant and original Ellis Islands and Marble Hill put together shrink to ~0.13 square miles? The actual island's fairly close to 21 square miles (about a half square kilometer more if counting perforations like Central Park Reservoir, Lake, Pond, etc) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan, Kansas etymology

@Castncoot and Midwestman1986: I think we could include the fact that the city in Kansas is named after this borough in the "etymology" section, as the city in Kansas is a namesake of this borough. However, is including the population overkill? epicgenius (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s a good thing because there’s also other manhattans in other states which are small townships of like 100 people. They are not important or significant. Theres like 7 manhattans or something but Manhattan Kansas is the only one that actuality became anything. It’s a Big college town. It’s where Kansas State University is. Plus it’s named after this borough do I think it belongs on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been there twice. There’s also another college there called Manhattan area technical college and K state has a big football stadium and a basketball arena. It’s jusr strange it’s called Manhattan but kinda funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midwestman1986: I don't have a problem including Manhattan, Kansas here. What I do think may be problematic, however, is mentioning that the city in Kansas has 1/30th the population of this borough, as it's just trivia. I think we can just mention that the city in Kansas has about 50,000 residents, and that it is a namesake of this borough. That much should be sufficient. epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it puts it more into scale. It’s like the 8th largest city in Kansas. It has Manhattan Christian college, Manhattan technical university and Kansas state university. It has a soccer stadium, relatively large football stadium and a basketball arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but speaking from a wider perspective, 53,000 people isn't really much, considering that some neighborhoods in this city are more populated (Upper East Side, to give just one example, has more people than Manhattan, KS). That's why I think some people may have problems with it. I noticed that Alansohn also removed that paragraph, with the edit summary list Manhattan, Kansas as a see also. This is about a city that's 3% of the size of the NYC borough. Details re "Little Apple" belong in that article, not here, and there are no sources in the Manhattan, Kansas article about the derivation of the name. This is why I think the inclusion of scale needs to be discussed, and whether we should include the Kansas locality's population at all. epicgenius (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we agree removed 1/30 th the size good compromise. But leave the population — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me here, just saw the invitation to the discussion. I've actually moved it to a much more appropriate spot, in the Culture section. This is a factoid that certainly doesn't belong in the lead section, but it also doesn't belong in the Etymology section either, which by standard convention is dedicated to the subject of the article. I think you both will also approve of the location where I've moved it, as it flows perfectly in the context of that paragraph which begins by mentioning the borough's presence in American idioms and discusses the "Big Apple" and contrasts the "little apple" with it. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it looks better now? It’s in history 19th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t trying to “dupe”. I’m saying in regards to it be the largest city in the nation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added that 4cities in the USA are named Manhattan. The largest being Manhattan Kansas under etymology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly out to push Manhattan, KS here. Get consensus on this Talk page before adding such contentious content. Many major cities and locales have disambiguation pages. Do we list all their namesakes in their articles? No. Castncoot (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why you have such A big problems with me putting that under etymology? It fits perfectly and is referenced . I’m adding to the page , that’s the entire point of Wikipedia. I get some of the other points you made but this last edit makes sense. I’m not trying to push anything I’m just trying to find a good spot to put Manhattan Kansas. I’ve. Even there like twice in my life. You’re just trying to get me blocked or something. So tell me why you removed that?

So I’m going to put that back on there soon. It is comlpetepy relevant to etymology. You change things without going on the talk page too

Believe me, you're doing a good job of getting yourself nearly blocked very well by yourself without my help, thank you. Let me just explain to you how Wikipedia works. When you want to insert content that someone unequivocally disagrees with on the basis that it is non-standard for a Wikipedia article, you must get consensus for it before inserting this content, not after inserting this content. In this case, what you are proposing is entirely non-standard for the article donating the namesake to another locale. Plus, I've already given Manhattan, KS a mention in the Culture section. Are you able to understand this? Please don't re-insert this without consensus. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only one who disageees that it doesn’t fit well under etymology. Why do you care so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you keep removing it without using the talk page and then you don’t respond to the talk page and accuse me of not using the talk page . I’m going to put it back up in a few hours. It fits well and is well sourced information adding to the pages contents.

Oh really? Did you not see this by User:Alansohn, who actually feels that Manhattan, KS should be a see also entry at best? Also, User:Epicgenius didn't seem thrilled with including the previous entry alone and has not been asked about this newest entry by you. What you're proposing is a way to try to push Manhattan KS into a high-profile location on this article, when what it solely merits is the Culture section factoid representation that I have already afforded it. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE. Let me now ask - why do you care so much? Castncoot (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me join the chorus of voices who strongly oppose mentioning Manhattan, Kansas, in the etymology section—especially since there is no evidence presented that the Kansas city was named after the Lenape word rather than the New York city/borough. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestman1986, I agree with Castncoot about WP:UNDUE. I honestly don't see that Manhattan, Kansas needs to be anything more than a see also; it's 3% the size of the borough and is barely relevant. If there is to be a mention of the place in Kansas, it should be to demonstrate that the place in Kansas was named for the borough, with an appropriate reference. It's irrelevant what the population is or that the place in Kansas is the largest of places named for the borough. For that matter, the Manhattan, Kansas needs a source to show that it was named for the borough, and last I had checked I didn't see it there.

@Alansohn: I agree, this fact needs to be put in the article about Manhattan, KS. According to the source listed on this page alongside the mention of the city in Kansas, New York investors in the land company played a substantial role in naming Manhattan for the new town. So it is tangentially relevant, but not enough to warrant adding more than a sentence. And then, I don't think that "etymology" is the best place for this, as it's more like a namesake.

Also, I would like to note that Manhattan, NY is not a city, C.Fred, though we in the outer boroughs like to pretend that it is . epicgenius (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that Midwestman1986 has been blocked indefinitely for sock-puppetry and abusive editing. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of the removal of country and state flags from the infobox

Many years ago I was informed by editors and administrators alike that the consensus on the use on flags in infoboxes was that "settlements" are not an exception, and after a random glance at towns of all sizes across the world it appears most editors are compliant. However, their removal to this article has been reverted by Alansohn with the following edit summary: "rv chg per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG re use for populated places)", and although MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does say Where one article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g., Manhattan, which covers both the borough of New York City and the island of the same name), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not., there appears to have been no debate on this or consensus reached. My Favourite Account ^😊 16:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—41.114.226.247 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained what you think is erroneous, but I've changed the precision of the coordinates and fixed it so that the coordinates in the title position match those in the infobox. Better now? Deor (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Manhattan is often described as the cultural, financial, media, and entertainment capital of the world"

The references given for above statement in the lead either don't support the assertion at all, refer to the wider New York, or are the opinion of a single journalist. I think there's a particular problem with the word 'often'. I suggest removing the statement. Previously, I've come across these accolades in connection with New York, but never in connection with Manhattan. Silas Stoat (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They do refer to Manhattan. Castncoot (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Consider the following quotes from the references:

Ref 1: A month later, the extraordinary devastation of a 16-acre tract in Lower Manhattan has become almost an accepted condition by a city turning its attention to war. Nearly 260,000 tons of debris, about a fifth of the total, has been carted away, much of it to be pored over in the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island by investigators looking for evidence and body parts. A roaring void has been created in the financial center of the world. This is ambiguous. It could be referring to NY or Manhattan.

Ref 2: In 1980 there were still the vestigial remains of the various downtown revolutions that had reinvigorated New York’s music and art scenes and kept Manhattan in the position it had occupied since the 1940s as the cultural center of the world. This one seems OK.

Ref 3: As the Archbishop of the media and cultural center of the United States. An inappropriate reference for the claim being made. The text refers to the US, not the world.

Ref 4: Manhattan May Be the Media Capital of the World, But Not For iPad Users. One journalist said this in 2010, and hedged his bets by saying maybe.

Ref 5: Ready your rainbows and strap on those pumps, New York City Pride will be seen live in fabulous living color this year. ..... Never before has any TV station in the entertainment and news media capital of the world carried what organizer boast is the world’s largest Pride parade live on TV. One journalist made this assertion in 2017, but it's unclear what location is being referred to as "entertainment and news media capital of the world". It could be either NY or Manhattan.

In the single case where it's clear, and in the cases where there's doubt, it is only ever the opinion of one journalist. The major problem is the use of the word often, but overall, the references don't support the assertion. Silas Stoat (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further - Ref 4. 'May be' or 'maybe', okay, maybe he's saying 'it is' However, do a Google search for "Media capital of the World". It's not Manhattan, it's NY City, without a doubt, and there are good third-party references. Silas Stoat (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will change it to "has been described as ..." rather than "often," per your particular objection to that word "often." I believe that's reasonable. Castncoot (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd be inclined to drop out Ref 3 as well (listed as Ref [9]), since that one, out of all of them, is not a valid reference for the point being made. And anyway, the point is over-referenced. There shouldn't normally be a need for multiple references to that extent. Silas Stoat (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Castncoot (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/nutmeg-new-netherland1.htm

[1]