Jump to content

Talk:Tribeca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:TriBeCa)

IMG 0106.jpg

[edit]

I have removed image:IMG 0106.jpg, as the image is very dark, somewhat blurry, and difficult to see much detail. --Aude 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were a better exposed, higher resolution image, it adds absolutely nothing to the article in the way of information about what TriBeCa actually looks like. It's such a generic image of a rooftop billboard that it could have been taken in any American city. Postdlf 23:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of cities have billboards and water towers on building rooftops? I think the picture looks very New York. And it adds more flavor to the article than the lame image of the Umbrella sculpture in front of the Citigroup building. Redleaf 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree, the umbrella picture is also useless, but at least it benefits from recognizability. What's your point? If the chicken stew is bland and you don't have any spices, throw in some clay from from the flower pot in the front window? Any flavour is better than no flavour?

What this article needs is a street map delimiting the boundaries of the region in question. Failing that, the article could at least point out the area in square km's of the region under discussion, since I really have no idea. MaxEnt 03:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Let's see this triangle. Ronstew (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

[edit]

Could someone add pronunciation? I think it's /traɪbikæ/ but I'm not certain. EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation. Seconded, it's missing sorely from this article. Maikel (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added, and for the record, it's: /tɹaɪbɛkə/. Geoking66talk 17:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (1)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Do not move.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tribeca" already redirects here. Change case per WP:MOSCAPS: "For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as k.d. lang, adidas and others), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." Press and common usage also follows this format. The target name format matches that of other neighborhoods listed at Template:Manhattan.

Related move requests at Garment District, Manhattan, NoLIta, Manhattan, and SoHo. — AjaxSmack 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

I don't advocate relying on this but the hated Google Hits test results show a greater use of "Tribeca" over "TriBeCa." — AjaxSmack 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WhAtIsGoiNGON?

[edit]

No one in the world that can read writes "TriBeCa" and I don't know why this article would use that alternating case style. It's "Tribeca". 216.232.157.126 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article should stay as it is because it shows the world what's wrong with Wikipedia; crackpots rule here, and the poor saps who come here looking for good, neutral, reliable information should be warned. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say if the title of the article is "TriBeCa", then every instance of the name in the article should be "TriBeCa". That the entire article refers to it as "Tribeca", the name is introduced as "Tribeca", and "TriBeCa" is only mentioned in the parenthetical "(sometimes stylized as TriBeCa)", are all telling. There is some pretentious silliness going on here with the title. Mbarbier (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PrEcIsElY. The name of the article is asinine. Varlaam (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]
The intro section here is horrendous. It starts off with how the article's subject faired after 9-11 before even introducing a reader into what the article is about. Can someone with knowledge rewrite this? Hooper (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

All that historical information about the Tribeca name seems inappropriate for "architecture". Maybe it should be split off? 69.11.4.75 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Would it be possible to get a street map of some sort to indicate more clearly where the area is? matt91486 (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can click the coordinates at the top of the article page, and we could add a crude text mode map like the one in Boerum Hill. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a map of all or most of Manhattan that shows where in Manhattan the neighborhood is.CountMacula (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TriBeCa Notable Residents

[edit]

The TriBeCa Notable Residents lists Yoko Ono among them. I hadn't heard she had left The Dakota. I cecked her page in Wikipedia and it still has her living in The Dakota on the Upper West Side. Ffferocious (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Ffferocious[reply]

Lede image

[edit]

The street scene is far preferable as a lede than a generic building, if consensus demands a change fine, otherwise let it be...Modernist (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TriBeCa [sic]

[edit]

It is time to have another vote on rationalizing the name of this article to what is actually used by real people in real life.
Varlaam (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same case as SoHo, where you are mistaking an actual distinction between New York and the real Soho.
Varlaam (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Tribeca. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Tribeca, New York City, New York → TriBeCa – Reversal of a BOLD move made without consensus.

"New York City, New York" isn't the proper place to move it; as NYC neighborhoods that share names with neighborhoods elsewhere operate under the form "NEIGHBORHOOD, Borough". pbp 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The camelcase version might be inappropriate, but so is the current title. Not a single neighborhood in NYC uses "New York City, New York"...they either are just the neighborhood or are followed by the borough name. Furthermore, the BOLD move was inappropriate pbp 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES camelcase or not whatever. Dalit Llama (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the former - TriBeCa ...Modernist (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2012 (
  • To clarify my position - I support a return to TriBeCa...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tribeca or TriBeCa, with redirect from the other - both are commonly used, and there's no need for disambiguation, since there is no other "Tribeca" anywhere else. (I've undone the non-consensus move to "Tribeca, New York City, New York", which goes against the format usually used for NYC neighborhoods. If there was another "Tribeca" somewhere else, the proper format would be "Tribeca (Manhattan)" or "Tribeca, Manhattan") Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see the #Requested move (1) section above, from 2008, in which "Tribeca" was the preferred name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The move I reverted was made without discussion, which is why I reverted to the status quo ante. Please don't edit logged out - use your account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is TriBeCa without the "New York City". The page had been at TriBeCa for years before a BOLD move. pbp 04:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then it was my mistake. My only intent was to undo the undiscussed bold move and return the page to where it had been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, because of my error it cannot now be moved to "TriBeCa" without the deletion of the current redirect paage at that name, so any further moves will have to wait for the outcome of this discssion. My apologies for the error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tribeca → Tribeca, Manhattan – WP:USPLACE states: "Neighborhoods within New York City have been identified by the standard [[neighborhood, borough]], where 'borough' is one of the five boroughs: Brooklyn, The Bronx, Manhattan, Queens or Staten Island." Powers T 19:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This well known neighborhood is known simply as "Tribeca" (regardless of the capitalization), and is not referred to as Tribeca, Manhattan. Apteva (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As a former Brooklynite, I can tell you that no one says, "I am going to Tribeca, Manhattan" or even "I am going to Tribeca in Manhattan." "Tribeca, New York City" -wikipedia gets almost 7.6 million hits, "Tribeca, Manhattan" -wikipedia gets 89,000. Kauffner (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a COMMONNAME issue. The goal of the move is to standardize the title with other neighborhoods of Manhattan. I doubt all those other neighborhoods are routinely referred to with the borough name, either, but that's irrelevant here. Powers T 18:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's fine as is. Tribeca works. It's not broken and doesn't need fixing...Modernist (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose It's true the move would bring the name into line with the standard laid out at USPLACE, which I support. However, as far as I can figure out (the history is confusing) this article has been known as TriBeCa or Tribeca most of the time since at least 2008. So IMO in this case the guideline of USPLACE is trumped by the policy statement at WP:TITLE, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where is Vesey Street ?

[edit]

You are refering to "Vesey Street". Where is that ? If you meant to write "Vestry Street", that seems to be a long way from the Chambers St which is also mentioned. Lathamibird (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go look on a map. You should be able to find it at the bottom of Tribeca near the World Trade Center. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DUMBO

[edit]

...is not a portmanteau word. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a portmanteau as "a word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms". DUMBO stands for Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass, so therefore, it is an acronym, "a word formed from the first letters of each one of the words in a phrase". So, I have removed it from the body of the Tribeca article. Epic Genius (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you might want to actually read the section as it stands. i have reverted you, for obvious reasons. BMK (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I was confused for a moment... but now the wording seems fine, seeing as acronyms are now mentioned. Epic Genius (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC) To clarify, I had removed it because the re-addition of DUMBO had no edit summary. Epic Genius (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why is it that acronyms are listed on a page about TriBeCa? Seems like acronym-named neighborhoods are pretty irrelevant to put on this page. Since it's been a year, I will be bold and delete. Jazzcowboy (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DUMBO, redux

[edit]

DUMBO is in Brooklyn, not Manhattan. Please make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.39.2 (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say it's in Manhattan, it refers to "New York City". BMK (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tribeca. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are requested...

[edit]

...to read an editor's massive deletion of completely sourced material, with no explanation except that the article was better before. Here is the version of the article before the addition of the sourced edits [1], and here is the article after the addition of the sourced edits [2]. Readers should compare the two versions and express their opinion on the sourced material – which largely fleshes out the history of the Tribeca area, including removing unsourced claims that have been in the article for years without being sourced – as to whether it improves the article or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • With some minor exceptions, the article is worse than it was before a sequence of more than 50 edits only five of which included edit summaries. Note the absence of any explanation for extensive, unexplained changes to the article, including policy violations in arbitrarily changing citation styles. The standard in such content disputes is to restore the article to the status quo ante and obtain support for changes as proposed by the editor. BMK is more than familiar with this process. I look forward to explanations and obtaining consensus before moving forward with changes to the article from the status quo version. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So...what you're saying is that because you didn't like my standardizing references to a format that matches the format used by the majority of references in the article, you arbitrarily deleted sourced information which expanded the history of Tribeca? Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of points to be made about references. First, WP:Citing sources#Citation style – which is an editing guideline – does indeed say that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style [of reference]...", but goes on to say that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." The suggestion is then made that editors "defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page..."
    As to those points, the very first edit to the page which has a reference which involves a citation style choice is this one, and the citation style used was: Gray, Christopher (2000, June 25). "Streetscapes/105 Hudson Street; A TriBeCa Taste of the Young Carrere & Hastings". New York Times - in other words: "author (date) title, source". This is the style that is generated by use of the "cite" templates. The article grew slowly and consistently, and there is no one revision that one can point to and say "This is the edit of the first major contributor", but the edit which contains the first use of a formal citation can be said to establish as precedent the citation style for the article.
    Now, I dont want to be unfair. When I started my recent work on the article the current revision was this. There were 38 references, 20 of which involved specifying the date of the source. Of those 20, six had the date of the source following the author -- the format used in the first reference which created the precedent for the article -- and the others had the date located in a later place, which I believe to be Alansohn's preferred format.
    The upshot of this is that I think my changing the reference style to match the first formal reference in the article is a defensible decision, but Alansohn does have a point that the majority of the references which cited the date of a source did not use that format. However, a guideline is not a policy, it is not mandatory, and certainly shouldn't be the cause of edit warring. So, if Alansohn's objection is to the changing of the reference formats, I'm willing to revert my changes, restoring the reliably sourced material I added and returning the references to their previous state. I am hopeful that this will bring this dispute to an amiable end. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I have, I believe, restored the references to the state they were in before my editing 9with the exception of obvious mistakes and the addition of missing information), leaving in the article the reliably source information I added. If I missed one, I apologize, it should be easily fixed. I do believe that it was unwarranted of Alansohn to deleted a large amount of source information which expanded and improved the article simply because of the change of citation style to one he apparently doesn't like. In fact, I don't particularly like the "author (date) title source" style that I changed it to, it's not my personal preference, but since it's the style generated by the cite templates, having a consistent style with an article (as suggested by the guideline Alansohn likes to cite) is necessarily going to involve mimicking that style. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tribeca. 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) 04:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 population figure

[edit]

What's the big deal with editing the said article to read that the 2016 population figure was an estimate and not an exact figure? There was no census taken in 2016. And @Modernist, don't you DARE tell me what I can and can't do! You are not a sysop, and you deserved what you got in my last edit to this article, because you deliberately chose not to provide an edit summary with a reason why you reverted my edit. You didn't even bring it up on my own personal talk page. 148.75.152.120 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The figure is referenced....and this is wikipedia......References matter, so let it be or provide a better reference.!!!!!! Learn how to edit!! Perhaps you're a knowledgeable editor with a total of 10 edits?.....hmmm sounds like a Sock...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the figure is referenced, but we have to acknowledge that 2016 is not a census year. So, the figure has to be acknowledged as an estimate. If you're not stupid, you should pay attention to these points. 148.75.152.120 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map in Non-English Language

[edit]

I took a look at the map for Tribeca and found that it was in a Non-English language on the English article, but only for the area of Manhattan which is in the original area of the map. I believe it is in Polish? Is there a reason for this and could it be modified to be in English for the English article? 2600:1000:A021:E943:F8B5:A535:3663:1503 (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the Manhattan area is still not in English as of 01 Jun 24. 2001:8003:1405:3F00:6D3B:4A2:A4B7:FCFD (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tribeca&oldid=1226654467"