Talk:Times Square/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First use of Disneyfied

--198.188.169.157 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I'd love to find the earliest citation on calling it "Disneyfied". I can cite Vanessa Letts using it in the New Statesman of August 1, 1997. Does someone have something earlier?

Also, in terms of preferring it the way it was, maybe we should cite Joe Jackson? "The smoking ban is just one part of the strangulation of New York's night life -- a crackdown on everything from topless bars to noise -- which began under Rudolph Giuliani and has continued under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Many of us preferred the old X-rated Times Square to the new "Disneyfied" version. Besides, shouldn't a great city be able to tolerate a red-light district?" [1] Jmabel | Talk 01:07, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

- I did a quick search on the New York Times website under "Times Square" and "Disneyfied." The oldest match is from December 1995. --Jleon 20:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Year's Eve in Times Square

Intially I screwed up the article's history section when trying to make it a more straightforwardly chronological read. I was simply going to revert it, but since I had recently read the WP:BB page, I figured I would have a stab at it. I would be interested in feedback. -- milovoo 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On a quick read I think those changes look great. Thanks for doing that. --TheOtherBob 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Say cheese

Is Times Square the most photographed location on earth? I remember hearing that it was... somewhere. ParkingStones

- I would imagine that is virtually impossible to quantify, but we could certainly say it is one of the most photographed locations on earth. --Jleon 20:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---I believe the Eiffel Tower holds that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.74.135 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Older pics

Does anyone know of any fair-use sites that have images of Times Square in older periods, such as the 70s? I think this article would be better if there were older pics instead of all recent ones. Ohyeahmormons 21:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Location

It consists of the blocks between 6th and 9th Avenues from east to west and 39th and 52nd Streets from south to north

I disagree with this description. I think it would be better to say that the Square itself properly consists of the area along Broadway and Seventh Avenue from 42nd to 47th Streets, and that the term "Times Square" is also the name of a neighborhood as described above. What do others think? --Keeves 14:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Times Square is primarily a place, not a neighborhood. For example, I live around 9th and 43rd - but I don't live in "Times Square." If I told someone I lived in Times Square, they'd think I lived on 42nd and Broadway, because Times Square most often refers to the actual square - where the ball drops. Times Square is a square of physical space like Red Square or Trafalgar Square. It isn't "square," per se, but it is definitely a physical space. So I agree that it should be revised - it's fair to say that the surrounding area is sometimes referred to as Times Square or the "Times Square Area," but the term "Times Square" most often refers to the actual square.

While we are on the subject, it is probably not accurate to say that in the US, "a city 'square' typically refers to a road intersection in a built-up commercial/residential urban locale." First, that would mean thousands of squares in Manhattan - every intersection would be one. Second, many squares in the US are more or less rural - most small towns have a town square but are not built-up or urban. And, third, I think the road intersections are not central to it being a "square" - think of Union Square or Madison Square Park, which are primarily parks. I think square in the U.S. probably means the same thing as it does elsewhere - an open space where pedestrians can congregate. Times Square just happens to have two big roads running through it. --TheOtherBob 05:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! --Keeves 01:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Times Square does have enough of a unique feeling and cohesiveness to actually be considered a neighborhood, however it's not bounded by 9th avenue. TSQ runs from 6th to 8th avenue. The north-south boundaries are highly debateable...thanks -- Mimopes 15:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Influences

I deleted the section on influences. First, it's not clear that Times Square had an influence on the places listed (for example, Piccadilly Circus predates Times Square by about 70 years, and several of the listed places were more "streets" than intersections). But more importantly, that section seemed to me to be original research, in that it seems like it is someone's opinion about places that seem "similar" to Times Square. However, if there is, for example, a textbook or newspaper article that compared those places and came to the conclusion that Times Square influenced their design, then this section should go back in - I'm certainly not opposed to that. Also, if you don't think this counts as original research, feel free to say so - I could easily be wrong. --TheOtherBob 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob

I have been to all of those places first hand, and I feel that they are deeply linked in terms of influence. It is worth noting because those areas so similiar. If you don't believe me, I suggest you travel.

The article starts out: Like Red Square in Moscow, Trafalgar Square in London, or Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Times Square is an open space where pedestrians can congregate. It was named after the one-time headquarters of The New York Times, and is located in the borough of Manhattan, New York City, USA, along Broadway and Seventh Avenue, from 42nd to 47th Streets.

I think Since the page references Moscow's Red Square and Tianemen Square(2 places I've also been to) it should reference those places I listed. The fact is that Time Square is more of a shopping district than a "place of gathering". Regardless of what you might claim. It's more influenced / similiar to places like Shibuya than it is Moscow's Red Square.

Here is a picture of Shibuya to see the similiarity http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Shibuya_tokyo.jpg

Here is Moscow's red square: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~James.Popple/photographs/gallery-05/4x6/red-square-1994.jpg

I think you'd have to be brain dead to argue that one..

I am not sure how you could bring up this relationship Time Square has to other places, and I could find several citations for Dundas Square / Hong Kong. I think it is so obvious that it is stupidity not to show the relationship. Oh, and Shibuya is an district, but also an intersection, the most busy intersection in the world. Shibuya probably influenced Times Square more then the reverse btw. Nanjing Road is a street, but it is pedestrian only, and highly similiar to other cities tourist attractions, such as Time Square

However I will respect your choice to exclude my "original research". I guess its a sign that I am too lazy to write a book ;)

Well, I do travel - and I live down the street from Times Square (which, I might add, is not really a shopping district - you can buy a broken watch, a cup of coffee, or go to Toys R' Us, but other than that it's just a place to look at signs, work, pass through, or eat at "Bubba Gump's."). Here's the problem - there's a difference between "influence" and "similar." Influence means that one of the places contributed to the design, development, etc. of the other. Similarity means that they are...well, similar. So it could be right that these things are similar to each other, but not right that one influenced the other. You're right that these other districts may have some similarities to Times Square - and it might even make sense to put them in the "see also" area of the article (though I would be careful not to make this a list of "places I've been" rather than a true list of "places similar to Times Square.") But did they influence Times Square or vice versa? Generally I'd say no. (It's remotely possible that Shibuya, for example, influenced Times Square, but the chronology seems off.) But more importantly, a claim of such influence requires, you know, something more authoritative than "I visited both places, and think they look similar." So that's why I removed it - whether that was brain dead or not, I won't comment on. :-P --TheOtherBob 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Bob

Rather then delete the entire section you should do the "right thing" and change the word influence to similiar. Rather than being a wiki squatter who just deletes anything which falls on "his page"

Don't you think? Or move it down to a different section.

I think your references to Trafalgar Square, Red Square, Tiananmen Square etc should be removed. They are not even remotely similiar or related. You use the word "Like" which suggests similiarity:

"Like Red Square in Moscow, Trafalgar Square in London, or Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Times Square is an open space where pedestrians can congregate."

If you want to make comparisons to those places I suggest you edit Union Square - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Square_(New_York_City).

And I will also respond to your comment that Time Square is not a shopping/entertainment/tourist district:

If that is NOT the case, excluding shopping malls - explain why Time Square, and the immediate surrounding area has the most tier-1 commercial/retail outlets per square meter on the entire eastern seaboard?

For someone who lives "down the street" you sure seem to ignore to all of the other restaurants, clothing shops, chocolate stores, electronics, music and street vendors you pass on a daily basis.

Ok, I'm trying to assume good faith, and you may well not have intended this, but much of your comment felt like a personal attack. Obviously Wikipedia is a cooperative venture, and there's no reason to get upset over changes. I tried to make light of your "brain dead" and "stupidity" comments earlier, but I really feel like you may need to cool down, assume good faith, and not be so aggressive when things get edited in a way that you disagree with.

In any event, I'm not entirely sure that the places you listed are even "similar" - I encouraged you to try to re-write to choose similar places (preferably citably similar places), and suggested that a good place to do that would be in the "See Also" section. I don't personally see any support for the idea that those places are similar (and I am concerned that they could be original research - i.e. places you visited and thought looked similar). But that's just my opinion. If you disagree and think these places are similar and should be included, you should add them to the appropriate section. (That's no guarantee, though, that others won't then edit or even delete them if they think they're not similar - and I would ask you to assume good faith when they do.)

If you leave the edit up to me, though, I won't include any of them - because I am of the opinion that they should be left out of the article. If you think that's "wiki-squatting" or whatever else...ok. I don't really see a need to respond to that.

To your second point, feel free to remove the "Like Red Square in Moscow, Trafalgar Square in London, or Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Times Square is an open space where pedestrians can congregate." That's not my addition - if I remember correctly, when I came across this article it essentially said that *unlike* Red Square, etc., Times Square was *not* a place where pedestrians congregate (I don't remember exactly what it said, but it was something like that). Pedestrians do congregate in Times Square, so I suggested that the language be changed to make it more accurate. If you think it's better to just delete that statement entirely, please feel free to do so. I assume you'd be making that change to make the article better, and you should always be bold in making changes that you think make articles better.

To your next point - look, it's entirely rhetorical, so I'm not going to debate the number of retailers per block or whether restaurants count as "retail." I just don't think it matters.

One final note - for everyone's benefit, please sign your comments with four "tildes." Thanks.--TheOtherBob 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the comparison to other squares around the world as problematic, except for the fact that those squares are more planned and have more defined borders, whereas TSQ has grown organically over the years and has rather amorphous borders. I disagree completely though that TSQ is not a shopping or entertainment district...TSQ is lined with tons of stores which do big business. Theater row is right off of TSQ so you can argue that the square is an entertainment hub. -- Mimopes 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No mention of George M. Cohan

Perhaps there should be a mention of and a link to the fact that there is a statue of George M. Cohan, the father of "American musical theater" in Times Square. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.191.24.143 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

One of the pics is wrong

The second pic under the heading Times Square Today (right after the times square pano) is not in Times Square. That is a pic of the intersection of 34th and 7th. -mister_okay

I think you're right - that Foot Action is next to Penn Station, right? Good catch. --TheOtherBob 15:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Penn station is below that entire block. I'm definitely sure about that because I commuted through Penn station everyday. -mister_okay

Trafalgar Square?

Does Trafalgar Square in London really have iconic, world landmark status? If I were asked to offer a London analogy for Times Square, I would probably choose Leicester Square or Piccadilly Circus, though I don't think that either of these is an iconic world landmark either. (I spent most of my childhood in London and currently live in New York). Bwithh 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Trafalgar Square is probably the most well-known, at least in the US.. --SodiumBenzoate 06:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture section

I removed the popular culture section. It was totally degenerate. It consisted of some fifteen seemingly random references to the appearance of Times Square in some form of media. Examples:

In the film X, a scene was shot in TS.

Part of the plot of fictional work takes place at TS

Clearly this is just an indiscriminate collection of information, none of it bearing any relevance to Times Square. Dr bab 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with you that this may be a trivia section passing off as a separate, legitimate section. However, I won't say all of the content is worthless and unencyclopaedic. It is a fact that Times Square is often portrayed in popular culture, hence it is a noteworthy characteristic. The information in the section could be organised better and trimmed, but to remove all of it would be overdoing it. Chensiyuan 03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Times Square is often portrayed in popular culture, and a section on this fact could therefore be a legitimate part of this section. As it stands now however, it is little more than a random list with an infinite number of potential entries. What inclusion-criteria should we have?

It seems that we disagree about the worthlessness/worthfulness of most of the items presently included in this section. While I respect your opinion, I feel certain items are clearly not relevant or important. A good indication of relevance in cases like this can be gained by asking whether a reference is important enough to be mentioned in the article on the particular popular work. For example, the article on Good Morning America mentions in its opening paragraph that it is produced live from Times Square. Clearly Times Square is relevant to Good Morning America. It does not immedeately follow that Good Morning America is relevant or important to Times Square. There are several examples where A can be important to B without B being important to A. Such cases will therefore be open to debate.

An example from the different side of the spectrum: The song My Boo, which does not mention Times Square at all. Evidently, Times Square is unimportant and unrelevant to this song. Since Times Square is so famous in its own right, it is definately not relevant that one scene from an otherwise unrelated music video is shot there?

A section on popular culture references should be written in prose form, on the general impact of Times Square, perhaps with a few well referenced examples. This would be a section that improves the article as a whole. The section as it stands now severely lowers the standard of the article, has several unsourced and unrelevant entries, and invites listcruft: The section has every potential to grow as people keep adding appearances of Times Square in video games, simpsons episodes, comic books etc.

My decision to remove the whole thing was based upon my above arguments, and my view that the section in its current form, even if the most irrelevant points are removed, does nothing but lower the standard of the article and tells nothing of the general impact of Times Square in popular culture apart from stating that it "has been featured countless times". In my view the course to take was therefore to delete everything and leave this section out, until someone writes a proper non-list section on this.

Dr bab 11:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I completely agree with the drive to remove most of the cultural references except where there is something specific and notable in it's own right. My thoughts are the kiss at the end of WWII, the james dean picture, the vanilla sky movie (since the scene is such a centerpiece of the movie and of TS in general). In particular, someone keeps adding "star junction" as the name of a TS like location inside GTA4. Do others think this is notable enough to keep? dm 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

Should a Gallery be put into the bottom of the page? I mean, I think there are way too many pictures.--Markdashark1212 20:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Grindhouses and flea circus

anyone out there with the low down on the early low down days of times square? i'd like to know about the 30s - 50s... Adam Holland 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Timesquare.com link

Several of us have been deleting the timesquare.com link in the External links section as it keeps popping up from different ip addresses. For me, its a clear case addressed by WP:EL. Thoughts? dm 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Common misconception?

"On this night hundreds of thousands of people congregate to watch the Waterford crystal ball being lowered on a pole atop the building (though not to the street, as is a common misconception), marking the new year."

why is this a common misconception??? Sullynyflhi 24.188.118.20 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "why do people mistakenly believe this?" or "why is it not true?" If the former, I don't know (and I'm not 100% sure that it's a commonly held belief in any event - though I wouldn't dispute that. I think I've always known that it was lowered to the top of a building.) But if you're asking the latter, it's because the pole sits atop a building...One Times Square, I think? In any event, the ball only falls to the bottom of its pole, and the bottom of its pole is the top of a building -- so it never really gets anywhere near the street. --TheOtherBob 05:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bombing?

Should something be added to this article in regards to the recruiting center bombing? It seems like a significant enough event to me. It's front page on both CNN and Fox News' sites. --Kevin W. 03:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's Times Square bombing, though it's currently orphaned. I'm torn over whether it's notable though. Media invariably overestimates the threat of smaller devices. While people who do stupid things — and are moronic enough to attempt it in populated areas — should absolutely be dealt with by law enforcement... I don't think it's a notable event unless the motives of the people behind it rise beyond that of a (really really really) stupid teenager. --98.206.221.93 (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about the "stupid teenager" theory. Some reports from law enforcement are saying the anti-war letters sent to Congress which were thought to be connected to the bombing are just coincidental. I guess we'll just have to wait until further details emerge. --Kevin W. 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Club Penguin

According to Club Penguin, they are buying Times Square between 3PM and 6PM Easten Standard to celebrate their third anniversary. Do you think this should be included? It's THE Times Square. 74.184.188.59 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Added Irunongames • play 22:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Duffy Square confusion

Nowhere in the article does it mention Duffy Square, yet the "See Also"" section says it is "the northern section of Times Square". I am confused - is Duffy Square a part of Times Square, or simply its northern border? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Duffy Square is the northern half of the "hourglass" shape that makes up Times Square. It's part of Times Square. There's a big statue of Father Duffy which helps identify it. this might help. PS: the google photo is from when the square was under construction dm (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just saw this, and for reference, technically only the southern part of the hourglass is "Times Square", the northern part is "Duffy Square". However, colloquially, the entire hourglass is called "Times Square" by everyone -- even the city, since that's what people understand it to mean.

  The same thing is true at Broadway & 34th Street, where only the northern portion (where Macy's is) is techically Herald Square, while the southern part is Greeley Square -- but the whole kit and caboodle is generally known as "Herald Square". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Forza 2 map

Should the Forza 2 map that is based around Time Square be put in the pop culture section or is it not noticible enough? Irunongames • play 21:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

-And what is "Forza 2" exactly? --Jleon (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Portraiture is one of the most common street vendor activities in Times Square.

Portraiture

Anonymous IPs 75.75.102.9 and 75.139.109.125 (probably the same person) keep putting back this picture of a handdrawn portrait that I and other editors have removed.

Personally, I dont think this adds anything to the article and if it was required, would want a photo of someone *doing* it, rather than the end result. Thoughts? dm (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

signage & lighting

Historic/famous signage at Times Square would add depth to this entry. Also the advent of lighting. Was Edison's DC lighting used here before AC lighting? Kin tell me that their father, Sol Yaegor's father was known as "the Jew that lit up Broadway". They say he made signs there. My guess is perhaps the first neon there? Also a link to the entry of the end of WWII sailor, kissing the nurse there. ~~focusoninfinity~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focusoninfinity (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

puffing billboard

The puffing billboard advertising Camel cigarettes was very famous during the 1940's through the early 1960's, and should be mentioned. See Smithsonian website. Also the The Times Square Debt Clock (though it may not be in Times Square nowadays), and the old lightbulb news ticker (which was very innovative when it was first built in 1928). AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Debt Clock wasn't in Times Square, it was on Sixth Avenue just north of 42nd Street. I don't think it's there any more. The "zipper" and the smoking billboard are worthy of note. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lights

When did the light/illuminated adverts first appear? It'd be nice to have a bit about that in the history section. (I ask because I'm listening to a BBC Radio 4 programme about Piccadilly Circus in London and it says the lights arrived there in 1908, and I was wondering how that compared with Times Square). 86.133.214.106 (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Times Square 1-2.JPG to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Times Square 1-2.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on December 31, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-12-31. 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} 21:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

[[File:|350px|Times Square at night]]

Nighttime photo of the northern section of Times Square in New York City, featuring billboard ads for various Broadway shows. Formerly named Longacre Square, it was renamed in April 1904 after The New York Times moved its headquarters to One Times Square. Times Square is the site of the annual ball drop on New Year's Eve.Photo: Matt H. Wade

Roads that have traversed Times Square

Can someone add a list of the signed roads that have traversed the square? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive me for sounding rude, but what do you mean, "What purpose would that serve?"? Just for starters, it would give readers more of a history of the square. Then, it would allow readers that are doing research on certain roads (such as the Lincoln Highway) to know if they went through the square or not. Finally, since I am one of the editors for Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, I would like to be able to find out if any roads that I am researching (at any given moment) ever ran through here. Thank you. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The only streets which have passed through Times Square (or Longacre Square before it) are the ones which do so now. Broadway was at one time called "Bloomingdale Road", and the Lincoln Highway "started" at Times Square by virtue of calling 42nd Street part of the Highway, but there was never any other road, street or avenue which passed through the square that is not there now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that is since the Commissioners Plan of 1811 created the grid that (essentially) created the square. Before that, there was no "square" to pass through -- but also no roads other than the Bloomingdale Road, since the area was undeveloped or farmland, and the purpose of the road was to get from New York to Albany or points in between. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags on Duffy Square

This may be more appropriate on Duffy Square, but as that talk page is empty, I figured I would find more people here. I noticed that there seems to be permanently an american flag and a french flag on Duffy Square (see this webcam, can bee seen in this pic. Why a french flag? Who decided this? Is it something the french are involved in or is it just a reminder of the actions of Francis P. Duffy during WW1. Anyway, I was curious of the details and could find nothing here, in Duffy Square or in Francis P. Duffy. Could some information be added on this? Asavaa (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not the flag of France, which is red, white and blue, but the flag of New York City, which is orange, white and blue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at this photo, which I just uploaded, I think you'll see clearly that the outside band is orange and not red. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it is even clearer in this picture where the seal in the central white bar can be seen. That settles the issue, thanks. Asavaa (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue: WP material from this article re-used on a website

I found this site who is clearly a copy of at least parts of this article, I also noticed a copy of the pic of the naked cow-boy that is on commons. Do you have a policy/process for treating such copies? Asavaa (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The material on Wikipedia is available re-use by anyone, with proper attribution and licensing. There are many sites that "mirror" the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but a cursory look at the website I linked shows that it is not a mirror, and the "copyright" under the website quite clearly says that the terms of the license are not respected. Asavaa (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think the material has been reused outside the license, you should probably contact the WMF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I do not think the Foundation owns any copyright on the content of WP. Only the authors of the copied articles own such a copyright. What I was looking for was something similar to what we have on WP:fr, ie a specific meta page where these case are signaled, discussed, and handled. I made a research here, and I think I found what I needed in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#License compliance, where I read that if a website does not respect our license, "any person willing may notify them, but it is preferable that a Wikipedia contributor to an article they have copied does so. A possible process is given in the non-compliance section below.".

So I guess I suggest an author of this article follows said process. Asavaa (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Update

Anyone know if another attraction or landmark has surpassed Times Square as the most visited since the Travel + Leisure survey?--Aichik (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Similar districts in other cities

The list of "similar districts" provides no criteria for inclusion and only one entry is referenced. What makes something similar to Times Square? Being an entertainment district? Being a red-light district? Being a tourist attraction? All three? I propose that this subjective section be removed. Pburka (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, unless sources can be found that say something like "The Times Square of Hong Kong". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Point of view issues in the sources

Sources such as timesquare.com, timessquarenyc.org and www.nyctourist.com are considered questionable sources that are promotional in nature. They should not be used at all in an article on Times Square, since they exist to promote Times Square. Times Square certainly has plenty of reliable sources to support this article without needlessly violating the editing principles of WP. GretDrabba (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

The Great White Way should not be used to refer only to Times Square as it does in the first paragraph of this article. That’s not at all accurate. TGWW is a term that commonly refers to Broadway, and to the profusion of lights that certainly exists in Times Square, and to that part of Broadway that passes through Times Square. However, the section of Broadway that is near to those Broadway Theatres that are not actually in Times Square or are above or below Times square should not be excluded from the term. Around 1901 when the phrase was coined, the man who coined it was installing electric signs near Broadway and 23rd Street, and didn’t intend that the phrase should refer ONLY to Times Square. The sources used as footnotes to support the inaccurate definition that Times Square is the “The Great White Way” do not agree with what is printed. In that way the article misrepresents its sources. The WP article Broadway (Manhattan), which is linked in the Times Square article, disagrees with the idea that The Great White Way refers to Times Square alone. GretDrabba (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the article to try to fix the problem. GretDrabba (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

1970s–1980s

You can't just call whole groups of people "undesireables" (sp?) in an encyclopedia article unless you're quoting someone. Also the issue of crime is all mixed up with sexuality. Legitimate adult businesses should not be lumped in with illegal activities - that's a moral judgment. Also, remember that an "anything goes" atmosphere had an up side, not just for criminals, but for anyone considered deviant in those backward times. The same was true in Boston's combat zone. Yes, there was crime, but it was also a place where drag queens, interracial couples, and others, could hang out in relative safety compared with the "respectable" neighborhoods where they'd get their heads bashed in.

Maybe it was different in NY, but the crime problem in Boston's combat zone resulted from the city's puritanical attitude towards sexuality. They corralled all the adult businesses into one small area, which they then totally neglected. The garbage wasn't collected, the streetlights weren't fixed, the police were corrupt and negligent - no wonder there was a lot of crime there. Then everyone blamed it on the naughty bookstores. --Rosekelleher (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The article has been somewhat altered regarding the passage using the word "undesirables" to reflect the footnoted source more accurately. GretDrabba (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Super category Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan

Please stop adding this super category. It's already in Category:Times Square, which is already in Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan, and the category Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan applies to all members of Category:Times Square, including this article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, normally you'd be correct, but as I explained in the edit summary, the average reader who is on this article and is seeking similar visitor attractions in Manhattan would not realize that they first had to click thru the "Times Square" category to get there. Even those experienced with categories might not realize that. The purpose of categories is to help readers and this article is not over-categorized. We must always keep readers in mind first. When rules get in the way, Ignore All Rules!! -- 72.251.71.218 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Other members of the subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan are not themselves categorized directly into Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan (e.g. Category:Libraries in Manhattan, Category:Museums in Manhattan, etc).

Also, the way that categories set up, articles should be categorized as specifically as possible. There is more than one category that readers can click to get to Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan. That doesn't mean that readers can't get to it, though. From the category page, however, it can be confusing to have both the sub-category and the article in the same parent category. Epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An article should have, right at the bottom of its page, all the categories that a resonable person is likely to want to click on in order to find similar articles. Otherwise categories are for the benfit of OCD editors, not readers. 72.251.71.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing the article in "Visitor attractions in Manhattan" via the category "Times Square" is reasonable. This article is an overview of the square. I doubt a reasonable person would say "Hey, let's go to Times Square and hang around all day doing nothing there". I bet they'd rather go and see what's in (the neighborhood of) and around Times Square, and all the things to do there. Many people, actually, are going to be inclined to click on the category link Category:Times Square to find out articles about nearby places of interest. However, we can reasonably add the category "Visitor attractions in Manhattan" if the "Times Square" category is categorized such that the "Times Square" article doesn't fit in the category under which the "Times Square" category is sorted. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Times Square is one of many "Visitor attractions in Manhattan", most of which are not in the vicinity of Times Square. That's why both categories make sense. It's that simple. 72.251.71.218 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it's a visitor attraction, but your sentence doesn't make sense. All other visitor attractions in Manhattan are not in Times Square, so both "Times Square" and Category:Times Square are in Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan? I can understand either the article or the category "Times Square" being in Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan, but having the Times Square article sorted in Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan, when the Times Square category is already sorted accordingly, is redundant. Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is redundant! So what? Redundancy is useful in this case. 72.251.71.218 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not across most of Wikipedia, which was why I removed that category originally, but if you say so, OK. Epicgenius (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Images in the history section

Images on Wikipedia are places to help readers understand the written content which appears on the page. Over the past week I have tried to add images to this page which reflect the page's historical content but these changes have been reverted and new images have even been added by reverting editor(s). Before reverting any additional changes to this page's images please read Wikipedia image policy and decide and make clear to other edits why your edit is justified under those guidelines.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender (sculpture)

The sculpture Unconditional Surrender is in Times Square for the next 3 days. Does it merit a mention? I already uploaded an image of the sculpture. Epic Genius (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Three days hardly seems significant. BMK (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but the Super Bowl Boulevard is also mentioned. That lasted all of a week. Plus, this sculpture was placed here because it is based on a picture named V-J Day in Times Square, which was taken in the exact same spot. Epic Genius (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess since the artwork's copyrighted (as BMK explained to me), it can't be added unless it has a fair use rationale. Epic Genius (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not precisely what I said. As long as the image is on Commons, you can use it here, but since there's no Freedom of Panorama in the US for copyrighted public art (as I believe there should be), it's possible that it could be deleted from there at any time -- so the best choice, wherever you want to use it, including the article on the sculpture itself, is to upload it here with a fair-use rationale for each article. My concern about using it in the Times Square article under fair-use is that it might be stretching NFCC a bit to do so, but using it in the scultpure article itself seems fine, so why not upload it here on en.wiki with a proper rationale so you don;t have to worry about it possibly being deleted from Commons? BMK (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, but Commons has a category for the sculpture page, so should all of these images also fall under copyright law? Epic Genius (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they should, unless someone has evidence that the sculpture is in the public domain, or has been released under a CC license. That's a Commons problem, though. BMK (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Matters are complicated somewhat by the fact that the original image is in the National Archives and appears that it may be in the public domain as being made by an agency of the US government (the Navy), but I don't believe that that prevents a derivative work, such as the sculpture, from being copyrighted. However, I'm no lawyer, and only a knowledgeable copyright amateur when it comes to complex situations like that, so I continue to think that the safest thing is to use it under fair-use/NFCC here. BMK (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, I get what you're saying. If it's a picture of a sculpture or anything, it should be uploaded under the fair use criterion. Epic Genius (talk)

If it's still in copyright, yes. BMK (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

how many people at New Year Celebrations

Has anyone ever made any sensible calculations regardingthe nunber of people who can attend the Times Square New Years Eve celebration.?The media always say there were one or two or even three million people there. In fact the square reaches from 42nd to 47th street,thats five blocks each about 200 feet...the two roads that criss cross are each only about90 feet wide giving a standing space maximum of 180,000 square feet..but its really less as the police for safety reasons keep lanes free for access etc.Assuming three aquare feet per standing person. say its 150,000 divided by three feet perperson that makes a total crowd of about 50,000 maximum..Even if you doubled this it would only be about 100,000 far far less than a million or even half a million . On some occasions I have only seen a few thousand there. Incidentally the 1884 Washington Conference on internation time settled that the New Year begins when Big Ben strikes twelve in London..Big Ben is coodinated with Greenwich about twelve miles away which is where the new year really starts.. When the ball drops in Times Square the New Year is already five hours old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.176.218 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything you've just done is called original research. The NYPD releases its estimates every year. Your point about Big Ben is irrelevant: the New Year begins in every time zone at midnight in that zone. BMK (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Image sizes

Wikipedia's Image Use Policy WP:IMGSIZE says "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width." And MOS:IMGSIZE says "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section." The images in this article violate the policy and the MOS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The pictures in this article have been at this size for years, and are just fine as they are. Per WP:IAR, please do not change them without an actual practical need to do so, as opposed to blindly following policy without concern for the quality of the article. MOS, on the other hand, is a guideline and not policy, and therefore is not mandatory and cannot be violated. BMK (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

IAR only applies to improvements. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct, and the layout as it stands is an improvement in relation to the layout you attempted to implement. BMK (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean it looks better to you on your screen, right? The one recommended by the policy and MOS looks better to me on my screen. The policy is intended to recommend image sizes that will result in the best layout for the most readers. Is there something special about this article that requires (for your screen) IAR? Or do all articles require IAR, in which case maybe a change to the policy would be in order? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the case. Only people with Wikipedia accounts can adjust their thumbnail sizes, so that vast majority of people see postage-stamp=-sized images unless they are properly sized. My set-up is totally standard, the same thing the vast majority of people will see, so the layout is just fine. BMK (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)