Jump to content

Talk:Thompson Street (Manhattan)

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

Revert warring over format

[edit]

BMK -- please stop edit warring by adding "Notes" as a subset of "References".

The first-used approach was completely correct.

See here ("This section, if needed, is usually titled "Notes" or "References" ... With some exceptions ... citations appear in a single section"").--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- I must ask you to stop edit warring over format, to change a format that was quite correct in the first place. As indicated above. Please take this as a final warning, as I see you have now, after the above, done it in a number of pages.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4th Street

[edit]

Washington Square South is not 4th Street and Sixth Avenue is gone. Although "Sixth Avenue" is a beautiful name we've had adequate time to let it go, in my opinion. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Avenue of the Americas and Sixth Avenues are now officially recognized by the city, and New Yorkers continue to use "Sixth Avenue" almost exclusively.[1][2] You are behind the times. Washington Square South is the continuation of West Fourth Street for the blocks below Washington Square. After that, it tuns into West 4th Street again, so it's the same street with a different name, not unusual in Manhattan.[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Example of the city using "Sixth Avenue in on offical document, Many more are avilable here
  2. ^ New York City official GIS map showing that 500 Sixth Avenue is recognized as the same as 500 Avenue of the Americas
  3. ^ "Washington Square South, New York" Google Maps
  4. ^ NYC Official GIS map showing location of 40 Washington Square South, and that the name of the street is "West 4th Street" east and west of Washington Square South
I am confused as to what the Google Map of Washington Square South is supposed to show. I don't see any evidence on it that Washington Square South is 4th Street. What are you saying? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You don't see a street called "West 4th Street" which continues without any change in direction, size or any other aspect, and is then called "Washington Square South" and continues for 4 short blocks before returning to being called "West 4th Street". Same street, no changes in it, just two different names, one of which interrupts the other. You don't see that? Probably just the same as you don't understand why it is wrong for you to put unsourced references to your paintings in Wikipedia articles.
Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was an avenue in Manhattan called "4th Avenue". Then the businesses on the upper part wanted to give the street some class, and petitioned the city to change the name to "Park Avenue", which the city did. Nothing else was changed, just the name of the protion of 4th Avenue from 33rd Street north. Then the merchants below 33rd Street wanted some class to, so the street below 33rd down to Union Square was renamed "Park Avenue South". Again, the same street, no changes in any of its aspects, just a new name for a certain section of the street, Eventually, the part to the east of Union Square was renamed "Union Square East", so that the only part of 4th Avenue which is still called "4th Avenue" is the section from East 9th Street/Wanamaker Place (same street, different name for a block) to 14th Street. So, the same street, had the same name at first, was renamed in segments over time, but the street remained the same street - the new names did not change the physical street.
The same thing happens all over Manhattan, like the one block of East 9th Street from 4th to 5th Avenues which I pointed out above is called "Wanamaker Place", the streets on the north and south of Gramercy Park, which change from East 20th Street to Gramercy Park North, and East 19th Street to Gramercy Park South, and then revert again once they pass the park. More examples can be provided if necessary, but the point is that a street changing its name for a short period of time and then reverting to its previous name does not make it a new streetm just the same street with a different name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More question-begging and unwarranted assumptions without the slightest shred of evidence, but also, I believe we're both seeing the same thing. There is no sense in which 4th Street is co-named "Washington Square South". It goes, is interrupted by Washington Square South, and then there is another segment of 4th. I know about all these streets, like the back of my hand. (By your logic, conversely, a street that does not continue in the same line but is broken in two like Emerald Street in Houghton, Michigan, is thereby two different streets.) --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have conclusively proven my point. There is no sense in which West 4th Street abuts the square, but the square is, in essence, a separate street. There being a park in the middle of the square doesn't enter into it. There is no sense of vindictiveness involved in my suggestion that patent nonsense doesn't need to be persistently reinserted into the article. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk)`
You have "proved" nothing, and your claim runs counter to the evidence provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2017 (Utica
I have absolutely proven my point, and your argument makes absolutely no sense. Your argument is that a street that in no sense has a particular name is in some way is the street of that name in an area in which it does not have that name if the width and bearing are the same. But the corollary of this argument carries truly bizarre implications. It would create a different street if a street of the same name widened or narrowed along its route, or went off at a weird angle, like West 4th Street, or where a street doesn't continue along the same line, like Emerald Street in Houghton, Michigan, which at one point actually parallels itself. Can you understand why I would at least have some skepticism about your position? Certain parts of it do not hold up logically. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thompson Street (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) 08:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thompson_Street_(Manhattan)&oldid=1201525063"