Talk:Manhattan

There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manhattan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 3 months

Manhattan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 3, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 18, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 30, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
April 7, 2018	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States: U.S. counties High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. counties.

New York (state) Top‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Top‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Repetition tag

Nikkimaria, what is the repetition rag referring to please? Castncoot (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's an example in the section above - the stats on office space appear in both the Corporate and Real Estate sections. Other examples include the claim about having the highest per capita income (Demographics and Economics) and the Triangle Shirtwaist deaths (History and Culture). There is also conceptual overlap between Real Estate and Housing's last paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, you have argued in the past (can the Statue of Liberty be both part of history and be a tourist attraction) here and elsewhere and seem to be making the case for this article that material can only appear once and only once. Given that some of these sections overlap with each other and that some ideas should logically appear in two different sections, what is it that should be changed or removed? Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained elsewhere, there is a difference between a topic being mentioned more than once, and the exact same idea being repeated. Instances of the latter should be consolidated. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained here in this discussion and as explained elsewhere, there are clear situations, including in this article, where you have removed content that clearly belongs in two different parts of the article, even if its for the same idea. It's extremely disappointing, if not downright disruptive, that you chose to respond to a rather simple question by deleting extensive portions of sourced content from the article rather than engaging in discussion. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly happy to discuss specific changes that you have concerns with. What specific duplication of content do you feel is warranted and why? And what was your rationale for reverting the other changes involved? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insinuate that other editors daring to edit an article is being disruptive. We had that with Castncoot at the New York City (or NYC or New York) article, and it didn't go very well. Seasider53 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, you've placed a tag claiming that there's "repetition". It's your job when you apply the tag to explain what you feel is "repetitive". You have been asked by multiple editors and refused to answer the question on multiple occasions. Daring to edit an article is not disruptive. Refusing to engage in discussion of what are clearly controversial edits is a different story. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the specific examples I provided above: the stats on office space appear in both the Corporate and Real Estate sections. Other examples include the claim about having the highest per capita income (Demographics and Economics) and the Triangle Shirtwaist deaths (History and Culture). There is also conceptual overlap between Real Estate and Housing's last paragraph. These were among the issues I addressed with my edits, along with others like this repeated stat twice in the same paragraph - I'm not sure why that would be desired. But again, if there were specific changes I've made you believe to be controversial, I'd be happy to discuss them, I'd just need more info about what your concern might be. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A change like removing this repeated stat twice in the same paragraph is entirely uncontroversial. However, in your latest sequence of mass deletion of content, you inexplicably removed content without explanation, such as deleting details about the world's tallest buildings from the section about Landmarks and architecture in this edit, with the utterly unhelpful and edit summary "trim". This edit removes details about destruction of housing from the Housing section with ths similarly unhelpful edit summary "org". Details about elections trends and political contributions from the borough simply disappeared in this edit, with the single word "trim" as an edit summary. Details about the structure of Manhattan's street grid were removed in this edit and all Nikkimaria could offer in explanation... you guessed it, "trim".

The claim by Nikkimaria that content can only appear once in article is entirely without basis and the refusal to either discuss the proposed changes or to offer anything beyond monosyllabic edit summaries ("trim", "org", "ce", "move") is utterly unhelpful, especially when specific questions have been asked and left unanswered. Further such mass deletions of content are clearly controversial and should be accompanied by explanations, especially in edit summaries that go far beyond Nikkimaria's typical maximum length of four characters for an edit summary for this article. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly happy to provide more explanation on top of what's already been said here, but it would be helpful to dial down the temperature a bit.

A relevant guideline here is WP:SUMMARY, which indicates that a high-level article like this one should comprise a high-level overview of the topic, with extended detail left to subarticles. A related explanatory essay, WP:EPSTYLE, notes that "An excessively detailed article is often one that repeats itself or exhibits writing that could be more concise. The development of summary-style articles tends to naturally clear out redundancy and bloat". That's the goal here. To that end, historical details - such as the evacuation of the Continental Army - are left to the History section and related subarticles (plus the very extensive electoral trend table), and redundancies like adding up 200 and 60 to get 260 are omitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the map

Why is Manhattan's neighborhoods in Lithuanian on the map? Junichsen (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a known bug with open street map, although previously the complaints were that places showed in Serbian. CMD (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan is the site of both the Old and New WTCs

It should be mentioned in the beginning of the article with the end saying "The former was destroyed in the september 11 attacks" Kennev123 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already in the article - see the 21st century section. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStreetMap map removal

Hello @Castncoot: I'd like to know more details about the reason for this edit. I think having a detailed map of a city (or, in this case, a borough) is never out of place in a Wikipedia article. I composed that map from OpenStreetMap last year, because I had found out the (at least, for me) incredible fact that there was no good quality recent map of Manhattan at all, in Wikimedia Commons. Manhattan, the best-known area of one of the most influential cities in the world, and a decent map from the last 50 years was lacking. The map is already used in other articles, but I think it is also useful in Manhattan article. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MGeog2022: Not sure if you're aware, but there is already a far better interactive map up near the top right of the page. The map you've added appears clunky, with poor resolution and takes up valuable real estate on the page without adding anything constructive. Or am I just missing something? Castncoot (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot, yes, I know about the existence of the interactive map, and it's very useful in the sense of having an always up-to-date zoomable map, but, on the other hand, I think that having maps as an image is also very important, because of their historic value on the long term, and because of their consistent state over time in general (I'm talking about having them in Wikipedia, or at least in Wikimedia Commons, not necessarily in this article).

The clunky look you say, I suppouse you are talking about the borders. Of course I agree that it isn't aesthetic, maybe in the future I could try fixing this in some way and uploading an improved version to Commons. Composing that map was a great deal of work at the time, so maybe I overvalued the result.

The map is already used in other articles, and we have the interactive map you said, so, OK, there is no need to include it in this page. By the way, having all the limitations you said, it's by far the best 21st Century map of Manhattan that exists in Wikimedia Commons just now. If someone with better skills than me could compose a better one (with data from OpenStreetMap or any other free source), it would be appreciated: we are talking about the best known urban area in the world. Recent USGS maps have a very questionable quality (I've uploaded some of them to Commons; several sheets are needed to cover full island, but the result of joining them would be, at least in my opinion, much more disappointing than the map I created from OpenStreetMap). MGeog2022 (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MGeog2022:I think your map has potential, I'm just not certain of the best way to incorporate it into this or other Wikipedia city articles as a standard feature. Certainly something to think about though. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Castncoot, thanks. There are really many Wikipedia articles about cities, and of course it isn't possible to have image maps in all of them, but I think it's something that contributes to article's content, when a free map is available. If there are freely licensed maps from sources other than OpenStreetMap (for example, this map), they are also very useful. Maps can also be created from OpenStreetMap with far higher visual quality than mine (for example, this one). MGeog2022 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @MGeog2022: Thank you for the suggestion! Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of MOS edit

Re: [1][2]

@Castncoot: Your revert edit summary was unresponsive to my bold edit summary. You gave no indication that you read the linked MOS guidelines, let alone understood them.

At MOS:OL, "New York City" is specifically listed as one of the things to be unlinked. See bullet 8.

The remainder of the bold edit was a routine linktext improvement per MOS:EGG; no link was removed. boroughs of New York City is a clearly better predictor of Boroughs of New York City than is five boroughs. This should be uncontroversial.

There is no PAG basis to revert either part of the bold edit. Please self-revert until you have a consensus to deviate from the guidelines. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- First of all, it's absolutely untrue that New York City cannot be linked. It's linked all the time on Wikipedia, the guideline guides it to be linked with responsible discretion when the link is relevant. And as the parent article, New York City is as pertinent as it gets here. Yes, your edit was bold, but way off mark in this instance. Castncoot (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. WP:OL specifically says things should still be linked when particularly relevant. I cannot imagine someone claiming New York City is irrelevant to Manhattan. oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]