Talk:Lower Manhattan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New York City (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern boundary of downtown Manhattan[edit]

While I agree that Lower Manhattan is bounded on the north by Canal st, I would argue that downtown and lower Manhattan are far from "roughly synonymous." Anything below 14th St. is downtown, according to most people. Soho and Greenwhich village are indisputably downtown, yet they are above Canal St. The opening to the Houston Street article, for example, states that it is a "thoroughfare in downtown New York City." Houston Street is well north of Lower Manhattan, but the fact that it is located downtown is hardly debatable.

However, rather than sully the current article with my original research, I suggest that we find a source claiming that downtown and Lower Manhattan are the same thing. Failing that, we should make the distinction between Lower Manhattan and the much larger "downtown" area clear.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments sound reasonable, while the way things were worded seemed questionable. I have tried to fix up the wording, and can try to find sources to add. If it's still not right, feel free to re-add the disputed tag and bring up further concerns. --Aude (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No such place as "downtown Manhattan"[edit]

This is just anecdotal from a non-registered Wikipedia reader, but growing up in New York City my entire life, the following things were always true: "Uptown" and "Downtown" are *directions*, not *places*. You can take a train uptown (north), you can walk downtown (south), you can take a taxi crosstown (east/west), etc.

"Lower Manhattan", "Midtown Manhattan", and "Upper Manhattan" are *places*. "Downtown Manhattan" always has a strange ring to it, like of a tourist who doesn't exactly get the local lingo correct.

Lower Manhattan = approximately includes the Financial District, TriBeCa, Battery Park City, City Hall, The Lower East Side, etc.

Midtown Manhattan = approximately Rockefeller Center, Times Square, Herald Sqaure, etc.

Upper Manhattan = approximately Harlem and everything north.

You'll notice there are some gaps like Greenwich Village, The Upper West & East Sides, Alphabet City, etc. That's because the only people who would divide Manhattan exactly in 3 would be the AAA NYC Metro road map people.

If a visitor from out-of-town asked to see "Downtown New York" or "Downtown Manhattan", they'd be immediately informed that there are two downtown-like areas: Lower Manhattan & Midtown and the differences would be explained. (WTC vs. Empire State Bldg, Financial District vs. Theater District, Battery Park vs. Bryant Park, etc.) --Alan from Brooklyn

Seems like the sort of thing that can be clarified by referencing material in the article. Will see what I can find. --Aude (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This is all horse shit. As I said on the (for some reason) defunct redirect page: "Downtown = 14/23 to Canal/Chambers. Broadest definitions. This redirect is bullshit, and is erasing the origin of most 20th century American art/music/etc. I think I've objected before, in fact, but I don't know where that went. Lower Manhattan and Downtown Manhattan are, at best, polar opposites, especially in the most vital period of both." Anyone who uses "downtown" to refer to the Financial District etc is just a moron, a philistine, or a banker. --Tothebarricades 07:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

-The article should make it clear that the term means different things in different contexts. When New Yorkers refer to the "downtown music scene" or "downtown art world" they are definetly meaning the definition you provide above. In most other uses though "downtown Manhattan" means below canal street. The northern boundary is definetly not Chambers street (except in a business context), because people in Tribeca will often say they live downtown. In other cases, downtown could simply be a direction from within Manhattan. Anyway: Tothebarricades, you really should acknowledge that people will use that term for lots of things and your own personal definition is just as subjective as anyone's elses. --Jleon 21:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

@Alan from Brooklyn I consider Uptown NY as Harlem Midtown NY as Midtown Downtown NY as Downtown Brooklyn And yes, I was born and raised in New York(Queens) (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Fourth largest Central Business District???[edit]

For a long time Lower Manhattan was viewed as the third biggest CBD in the USA and until recent it was changed to fourth after Washington DC!!does that make sense or not?isnt Midtown the largest,then the loop, and then LManhattanEdwinCasadoBaez 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Image use[edit]

What does the bar top image bring to this article?MickMacNee (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it shows that people actually live and go out in this city. Because it shows nightlife, at what is a very well-known establishment. Because not every photo has to be outdoors of a monument or a building, but can actually show the life that happens in the city. --David Shankbone 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As elsewhere, relevance to the article title? WP is an encyclopoedia, not a photo album. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Really?! It's not a photo album?! Nobody told me. Relevance is Hogs & Heifers is a well-known establishment in the Meatpacking District which is located in Lower Manhattan. --David Shankbone 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The establishment has no article. Why is it notable? Why is this photo a defining aspect of this article, which is about a district, not a bar. MickMacNee (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not, not everything notable has a Wikipedia article. Because it is a well-known popular bar, known for bar-top dancing. Image is perfect for this and Meatpacking District. It's good to show a the life of the places, and not just the tar and concrete. --David Shankbone 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Then create an article for the well known bar, don't use this article as an excuse to include a non-relevant image. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm, sorry, but are you giving me orders? If you don't like the photo raise an RFC, but your haughty, "Answer me now" tone is unappreciated. --David Shankbone 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The 'tone' as you put it is in response to objecting to an image deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(un indent)I reverted your second removal. You will need to get consensus to remove the image, not decide to do so by yourself. This article and its images has been worked on, including with this image. You have come out of nowhere and taken a disliking to it. You are welcome to ask for consensus to remove it, but please attempt to do so, especially since nobody on the New York articles has really seen you edit them before. Which is dispositive of nothing, but it's odd to go on every article over this one photograph, you have done, and claim it should be removed. --David Shankbone 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am entitiled to boldly make any changes I see fit if it is not against obvious stated consensus, which in this case there is not. I do not have to be part of any project before I am allowed to edit. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't like the mass image deletions done by User:DCGeist User:David Shankbone in this edit, but he never responded to my request to discuss such a major change of images here first. It's attitudes like that which are not appreciated by other editors. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Loadmaster, you really need to be more thoughtful when you're complaining about other Wikipedians' edits. This is at least the second time you've charged me with committing a "mass image deletion." Please look at the diff you've provided: David Shankbone is who made the edit you have a problem with. Don't complain about "attitudes" when you can't even be bothered to direct your accusations accurately. I await your apology.—DCGeist (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize. And I thank you for restoring the night image [1]. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from--trust me--but the images on this page didn't show Lower Manhattan, but poor-quality images of skyskrapers and the WTC. The page needed a major face life, and per WP:BOLD the only way it would happen is to do a mass image change, and then work out the particulars in the aftermath of what should stay, and what shouldn't. Often pages aren't as bad as this one had become--no slight to your particular photo--but it really needed some work. It was kind of depressing to look at. And the night photo was restored :-) --David Shankbone 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Useful image restored. Nightlife is one of the primary and characteristic activities in Lower Manhattan; an image illustrating that fact is perfectly appropriate to an article on the area. Mick, this sort of personal comment is unnecessary and uncivil: "Don't use this article as an excuse to include a non-relevant image."—DCGeist (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What absolute rubbish, an image of bar-top dancing offers nothing towards the definition of Lower Manhatton. It is superfluous at best. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Absolute rubbish." Hmm. Mick, you should know that you're practically asking not to be taken seriously anymore.—DCGeist (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be your personal opinion; once you have a good reason to include this image in this article, let me know. Anything else is irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I see from your contributions elsewhere that you are unfamiliar with the neighborhood and its characteristic activities; you have also demonstrated no interest in adequately informing yourself. Your ability to judge the image's relevance is minimal at best. Your manner of communication here (unprovoked personal attacks, "absolute rubbish") and elsewhere ("absolute crap") merely confirms your inability to contribute productively to a discussion of this topic. Despite your misleading plaint, several good reasons have been provided for the image's inclusion in the article. While the image is by no means perfect, on balance it does add to the informational value of the article. See you in the funnies, Mickster.—DCGeist (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What have you added with the above statement bar your obvious opinion that artticle content decisions are your perogative? When you say something that actually adds to the case for including this image, let me know, otherwise, just assume people already know what you think. There are absolutely not several good reasons for the images inclusion thus far. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a crappy image, in my opinion, but that's not enough reason to exclude it. Irrelevance to the article text is a better reason. And simple logic says that you need to get some consensus among editors to include an image in an article, not to exclude one. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, and welcome back. While I support the use your photo in some article. Is the Meatpacking District really Lower Manhattan? I think not. When I think of Lower Manhattan, I think of the Financial District and perhaps and Tribeca and Chinatown, but nothing above Canal...... If anyone disputes this fact (or is it a mere impression?), I'll try to look for sources.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Defining Lower Manhattan[edit]

Hi, Fat Man. This question is actually specifically addressed and sourced in the article. Please take a look at this link NYC Basics from, the website of the city's official tourism marketing organization. It seems that not only does everybody have a somewhat different definition of lower/downtown Manhattan, but many of our individual definitions vary according to context. Aside from the quasi-official source I've linked to, it's my personal impression that the Meatpacking District certainly is included in many people's definitions of lower Manhattan. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fat Man. I'm not officially "back", but what DCGEist wrote is true. For instance, since I have lived in Manhattan (seven years) below 14th Street has been the common line. So, the West Village, East Village, Tribeca, NoHo, SoHo, Chinatown, Wall Street. All of that is "Downtown", or Lower Manhattan. South of Canal is popularly known because of 9/11, and because that was the line of demarcation for obtaining rental subsidies for areas affected by the terrorist attack around the WTC [2]. But almost everybody would say the East Village and Alphabet City are "Downtown" and not "Midtown". But this is one of those cases of: everyone is right. But you'll also find some old-timers who demand 'downtown' always meant one thing. Or that that we should always call it the Pam Am Building or the AT&T Building. --David Shankbone 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bar top dancing pic[edit]

It is now clear that this image's use on this article is disputed, between the uploader DavidShankbone [3] who added it to apparently cheer the article up, and supporter DCGeist who appears to have ownership conerns with this article. Opposers are myself, for reasons below, Jim.henderson, (admittedly a dubioususer, but AGF for now) and Guest9999 who proposed complete deletion of the image[4]

This image has been given various dubious reasons for inclusion, and appears to me to only be included to maintain a left-right pretty pattern and as per DS, jolly the page up. It has claimed notability by being a picture inside a bar in one of the districts of lower manhatten (and is repeated on that sub district's page aswell). The question being, why this bar and this scene, when there are clearly objections to it. Additionaly, the bar itself is not currently worthy of its own article, further diminishing notability. The other notability being claimed is apparently a general absolute need to show lower manhatten has a nightlife, a tenous reason to include a pic at best - especially as nightlife nor this bar is mentioned or referenced specifically anywhere in the article, leaving the picture completely without context or relevance, again lending weight to the theory that it's inclusion is for aesthetics only.

As above consensus and rationale, I am removing it once again pending any further support/objections. MickMacNee (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You've made an unprovoked and baseless claim of ownership conerns [sic], which is not relevant to the merits of this particular case, but does speak to your credibility or lack thereof. More pertinently, you've misleadingly characterized the reasons given for inclusion as "dubious"; in fact, you merely disagree with them. Just as significantly, you've falsely claimed a consensus in favor of your position; in fact, (a) the record shows that cannot be assumed to be a good-faith contributor; (b) you cite Guest9999, who has never participated in this discussion; and (c) you fail to cite The Fat Man, who supported the encyclopedic value of the photo itself, questioning only its geographical applicability, a question that appears to be resolved in the affirmative. Image restored; text added per your reasonable observation that the illustrated topic should be discussed in the text of the article.—DCGeist (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A brief look at the article history and your continued reversions more than suggests your ownership here. Fat man's support is borderline, as explained in the text depending on where you apply downtown. And on 9999 I'm not sure how you think someone can want an image deleted in its entirety, but also support its use here. Therefore consensus is still at best 50/50, ignoring the obvious concerns over your ownership, DS's implicit interest as uploader, and the fat man who can obviously objectively judge where pictures should be used. I haven't read your addition yet but I'm pretty sure it won't make this picture any more relevant to the article, and if it did, it's still a random non-notable picture included for obviously vain reasons. Anyway, ths discussion is here on the record, waiting for more people than you and DS to see the obvious, your claims that this pic is worthy of inclusion here are totally biased and baseless when considered from an encyclopoedic perspective. This article would 100% not be affected by the removal of the picture, yet I bet if I replaced it with another equally random non-notable downtown bar pic, just to illustrate the apparent need that LM like any other metropolitan place on earth has a night life, you would revert in a flash. Seriously, this is beyond a joke. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
PS, in the original count I missed out the very pertinant comment "Irrelevance to the article text is a better reason. And simple logic says that you need to get some consensus among editors to include an image in an article, not to exclude one." above from Loadmaster. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
PPS, your addition of one line about night life "The area's many nightclubs and bars draw patrons from throughout the city and the surrounding area." is so vacuous as to hardly need including. Seriously, "LM has bars, they draw people" and you need that pic to illustrate that groundbreaking piece of knowledge? Who is reading the article? Martians? I bet even Martians would prefer a picture of the interiors of the museums, art galleries, jazz clubs you also added before that final non-sentence, or even the interior of the notable establishments you mention, Max's Kansas City or CBGB MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article for 6 hours. Work this out on the talk page, please. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been well-established that MickMacnee's behavior—pending an apology—renders his opinion on this issue entirely dismissable. Jim.henderson, the other main proponent of deleting the image, deliberately deceived in edit summary the previous time he did so. The evidence shows there is no consensus to remove the image. It is free content, and it does add to the informational value of the article. None of us who support the image's inclusion claim that it is perfect. If and when a superior replacement for it is identified and discussed, I'll be happy to support a substitution.—DCGeist (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal for WP:BLP I've removed said picture and gave a mini-explanation in my edit summary. I'm going to invoke WP:BLP even if it seems out of the realm. When clicking on the given pick, it zooms in very close. You can make out several people in the bar and could likely identify them. There is a scantily clad girl, people making out, people drinking. All of it no big deal in my eyes, and plus they were doing this in an open place already, right? Well, the thing is, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. To quote the main part of BLP I am relying on : "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". This picture is possibly doing harm, however unlikely, but it is certainly sensationalist and not required to get a point across the article about the night life. I'd welcome discussion refuting me and specifically discussing the pic, but lets leave out discussion of sock and a certain M.Mac.Nee. ThanksGwynand (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this picture. Considering the fact that "going downtown" has been associated with going out to party for decades, there is indeed a solid rationale for inclusion of this sort of picture. Indeed, there have been very prominent songs written as paeans to the notion, and the article really ought to have more about this, not less. We don't have to feature this particular photograph of revelers, but it is a perfectly good candidate. Drinking and kissing are not particularly scandalous, and the scantily clad girl is in no way identifiable. I can't see how it is controversial other than perhaps to the Taliban. Sylvain1972 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. No one who is identifiable is seen doing anything illegal, particularly memorable, or even marginally scandalous in the picture. Obviously, all the activity depicted took place in a very public environment. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is simply misapplied here.
Just to clarify the history of the image: It was added by editor David Shankbone on February 12. It appeared in the article without controversy for almost two weeks before it was deleted without discussion by he who must not be named, who confoundingly described it as "irrelevant" in edit summary. The great debate followed. Given the history; given the image's status as free content; and given that nothing of comparable informational value has been proposed in substitution, I believe the status quo is that the image belongs in the article. A new consensus must be sought not to keep it, but to remove it. Balancing the observations by Gwynand and Sylvain1972, it does not appear that such a consensus for removal is currently forming. I will restore the image per this analysis, unless and until a consensus does emerge for its substitution or removal.—DCGeist (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite apparent that there is no consensus to keep the image in the article. Three users (DavidShankbone, DCGeist, and Sylvain1972) like it, while everyone else who has bothered to comment doesn't. (Personally, I think the image is aesthetically rather poor.) Logic and Wikipedia etiquette dictate that a consensus must exist in order to include an image in an article, and this image does not qualify on those grounds. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Logic and Wikipedia etiquette dictate that removal of free content from an article requires consensus to that effect. As you confirm, no such consensus exists. Again, the image resided without controversy in the article for almost two weeks—that is the established status quo. All of the efforts undertaken to eliminate it have been made without supporting consensus.—DCGeist (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to stay out of this one as I had to go through it on another page, but I have to agree with DCGeist on this. The photo does not detract from the article. To the contrary, it brings diversity and a wider perspective of the area to the article and thus would need a concensus to remove. I believe it should stay and I definitely do not see a concensus to delete. Mstuczynski (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm shocked, Shocked I say, to find intelligent people disagreeing with me on this. True, the picture shows nothing particularly scandalous, interesting, illegal, or distinctive to the topic of the article, nor does it biographize a living person or dead. These absences, however, do not commend its inclusion here. Perhaps some other home can be found for it, for example an article about a smaller neighborhood within the broad downtown area where nightclubbing is a more prominent part of the economy. East Village, for example. With recent warmer weather I've been spending more time Downtown, taking photos and putting them in Wikipedia. None of mine that are of good quality are also well suited to this particular article, however, so they are in more narrowly focused downtown articles to which they are more precisely relevant.
Speaking of quality and relevance, the indoors high school picture is somewhat more distinctive to the topic than the bar dancer picture, since few high schools outside Manhattan have escalators inside. Alas, its poor quality makes it approximately as poor a contribution to the present article. I hope it can be reshot for better quality, but the problem with the dancer picture is its lack of relevance, and similar ones will have the same problem. What I'd like to see in this article is a good picture of South Street Seaport but the pictures in that article are barely good enough to suit its more narrow topic, much less be promoted into this one. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering the fact that "going downtown" has been associated with going out to party for decades, there is indeed a solid rationale for inclusion of this sort of picture. Indeed, there have been very prominent songs written as paeans to the notion, and the article really ought to have more about this, not less.Sylvain1972 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious image part 4[edit]

Even after the additional commments from Mstuczynski and Sylvain1972, the consensus to remove this image is [5][6][7][8] [9] [10] 6 to 4 against. I have counted the actions of named users only, the IPs are 1 apiece, and have not contributed anywhere before or since. Additionaly, one editor doubts the image's use as it fixes one POV of the defining area of article itself [11]. Following an explanation of the consensus at the 4 to 2 (DCGeist and uploader) stage on the talk page, DCGeist re-included the image a further 9 times, with edit summaries such as yet another editor not fluent in the English language, in line with his ownership of this article in general, and has continued reverting since, including three times in one day, when it was not being done by a single purpose IP editor. I won't be reverting anymore, as I am now in fear of further bans for trying to reflect the basic facts above and edit accordingly, including opening the first discussion on talk, against 'valued contributor' DCGeist, however these facts clearly needed restating for others here, in my opinion.

Further, the article still contains no text to assert the relevance of this particular image for illustrating the article content, and re. songs, I don't think the writer of the 1964 hit Downtown had bar top dancing and brasier montages in mind at the time of writing. The relevance to the article is general and/or not encyclopoedic at best, and sets an odd precedent for general illustration of any article regarding any geographical area with a nightlife. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Downtown Manhattan in fact had its own article, before it was subsumed by this one. Therefore, it was decided that this article would cover that ground. Hogs n' Heifers, which is below 14th St., is certainly "downtown." In fact, the 1964 hit does make reference to dancing, and likewise the sentiment of Neil Young's 1995 single "Downtown," with its chorus "Downtown, Let's go downtown, Let's have a party, Downtown all right," is well-illustrated by the picture as well. I am now adding text to put this in context. Sylvain1972 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sylvain, I am confused as to how you are signing your comments. Are you not typing in 4 ~'s?Gwynand (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Four ~, that's what I do. Sylvain1972 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Like MickMacNee, I've given up on the image. All I can say is that I'm not opposed to the article having an image reflecting the downtown clubbing nightlife of Manhattan, but I would prefer that a better image be used for that purpose. Speaking as a photographer, the image in question is, as I've said before, rather poor. If the subject of the image is indeed "table dancing" as the tagline states, then the table dancer should be the prominent feature in the picture, but it's obviously not. Surely there are better images representative of table dancing or the nightclub scene that could be used instead. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the added song related text has absolutely nothing at all to do with the image, and frankly degrades the article a little bit, per all the previous deletions of 'x in popular culture' listcruft. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
id like to chime in here to say that to anyone with sense its clearly not a great picture generally speaking, and as far as the wiki is concerned its completely unprofessional and out of place, typical of many user created images that painfully detract from wikipedia (you know, like the ones of some guys wifes boobs on the "bra" and "breast" articles) the fact is, a more generic picture of a club or bar downtown would be perfect to illustrate the night life, but this picture is an abomination BBnet3000 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Image: Manhattan skyline at night[edit]

Adam.J.W.C. keeps removing image LowerManhattan0703.jpg, so I'm giving up trying to include it in the article, and just leave a link to it here on this talk page. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed that image because there is another image just below it that is of better quality and shows the entire area quite clearly, it also happens to be a FP, you can see everything. If that picture wasn't there I would have left it. Even though yours was a night photo the features were a bit small and a bit dark. There were to many pictures overcrowding the article as well. If you live in the area why don't you go out there and try again. If it were me I would if I thought it was that important. Adam (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't live anywhere near Manhattan. I took the picture on a business trip. It lacks detail because it was foggy that night. And it appears to be the only night scene of Manhattan, which seemed to perfectly fit the text in the article about Gotham City. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Downtown Manhattan?[edit]

There are arguments about Downtown New York. Some people think Downtown New York is Lower Manhattan(Financial District etc...) but people who say that are either from Manhattan or aren't from New York. Most people consider Downtown New York as Downtown Brooklyn. I would change this page to Downtown Brooklyn( and put this as a secondary page. (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)