Talk:Union Square, Manhattan
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Union Square, Manhattan article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Given the sentence from the article "Union Square is also the site of an important subway station; 14th Street-Union Square, a stop on the 4, 5, 6, L, N, Q, R, and W trains", should the wikilink shown here point at 14th Street-Union Square (BMT Broadway Line station) or 14th Street-Union Square (IRT Lexington Avenue Line station). Thanks for the clarification. Courtland 03:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt the RNC protest was the most notable protest ever to start in Union Square. In any case, such an assertion can't stand without some citation. I altered to make it clear that this was perhaps the most notable recent protest to start there. If anyone has hard figures or a reliable historical perspective, I invite them to add it. --Tcatts 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You are right - Union Square has many notable protests. Appropriate change. If anyone has photos of either the RNC or the Camp Casey protests, please upload. It would be worthwhile to have a separate section similar to the Greenmarket one for the protests and vigils that are oft-held there. --DavidShankBone 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The article lacks knowledge of the rich historical significance of the square.--Gkklein 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Separate section for sculptures of Union Square?
There are many sculptures within Union Square, perhaps there should be a separate sub-section specifically for the art of Union Square? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Creation and architects
I added a source for the founding date of 1832. I can't find any sources that say that it opened in 1939. As to the architects, I really can't find anything on Olmsted and Vaux having been the architects. Can we get some sources before we start changing things? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- And besides that, get a clue about the infobox structure - you can't just put anything you want in it, there are preset parameters. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, was that directed at me? And why did you remove my reference? I'm putting it back.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Umm, a section is to be called "Greenmarket and local businesses"? Why? "Commerce" more precisely describes a section that is all about people selling things, while some parts are not about greenmarket and not about local business, unless a branch of a chain store like Staples be regarded as one or the other. "Commerce" is also shorter. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Alhough you are correct that "commerce" is the factor that ties together the greenmarket and local businesses, the main thrust of the section is the greenmarket, and "commerce" does not in any way adequately describe it. As an institution, it's much more than about "people selling things", and has meaning for the people who use it that transcends that rather pedestrian description. As such, the section needs to retain "Greenmarket" in the section title. (Not only that, but "commerce" is such a stuffy and almost antiquated word, seen these days mostly in the form of "commercial".)
If you want to try seperating the greenmarket stuff from the stuff about local stores into two seperate sections, I suppose that's worth trying, but, again, "commerce" is not really the nub of that information either, which is more about the makeup of the area. Perhaps the greenmarket info could stand on its own, and the local business info be integrated into a general section about the neighborhood surrounding the square. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I wouldn't suggest adding more text or sections. If anything along those lines, better to trim out from the first paragraph institutional matters already well covered in the separate Greenmarket article, and delete the header of the following BID section, since the association of merchants is properly worthy of only an unTOCked paragraph within the commercial section.
- "Commerce" is stuffy, antiquated and pedestrian? While, in contrast, "Greenmarket and local businesses" is what? Hip, trendy, and chivalrous? That's not how the comparison looks to me. Anyway as I read WP:TONE stuffy is not bad; maybe even good in moderation. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Greenmarket and local businesses" wasn't my choice -- I was perfectly happy with "Greenmarket" and allowing the local biz stuff to stay in as a bit of related information that spilled over from the topic. It can go back to hip, trendy and chivalrous (?) "Greenmarket". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This article should briefly mention a thing or two about the birth of hip hop music and culture and the use of union square by many talented legendary acts to project their style and music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Um, can you give us some examples of people that would fit that? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
the article at this writing includes incomplete citations, employs multiple date styles and has various assertions, including entire paragraphs without attributions. i have attempted to cure some, and have been categorically reversed.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Give me a minute, because I think I misjudged your initial edit, and I'm going to try to figure out how to restore most of it, and also put in the subsequent changes I made -- so hold on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I reverted back to your second edit ("typo"), and put in most of the changes I made subsequently. I removed the linkrot tag, as I do not believe it is pertinent any longer (please see recent discussions on WP:AN about overuse of this tag). I think and hope, this is a compromise we can agree on. I'm not sure why I got the impression that your initial edits were not helpful to the article, but I did, and my actions were based on that. I see now that I was wrong, so I apologize for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)