Talk:Manhattan

Lead section

With regards to the lead section, do people generally prefer this version (Version A), or this version (Version B) as the basis for future development? Let's have some preliminary discussion, and if we don't arrive at a clear consensus I'll open an RfC to bring in wider viewpoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Version B would be best; anyone have any arguments to the contrary? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Both could do with some trimming but Version B seems to be a bit better. Combining the "Anchored by" and "Many districts and landmarks" paragraphs into one works well. RegentsPark (comment) 19:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

As no objections were raised, I have restored Version B (with the citations added in the interim). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't even aware of this discussion until right now. The status quo version is clearly better. Version B looks awful, as not only is it cutting out important details, but it looks crammed like a fifth-grader's editing. Castncoot (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

At 300 kB, this whole article is already far too long; for example, it would take over an hour to read through and greatly exceeds WP:Article length's recommended maximum of 100 to 120 kB.

Some material should be summarized and perhaps spun off on to a sub-article (although for many subjects, it would be better to direct readers to the relevant section of an already existing subject article for New York City).

As for the lead itself, even Version B is far too long. The Met Gala may belong in discussions in the main text about the Museum, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. The lead includes two satellites of Cornell; however it doesn't (although it should) include the far-more-important Cooper Union.

And so on and so forth.

@Castncoot: @Nikkimaria: —— Shakescene (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark and Shakescene: What other specific details do you feel should be trimmed from version B? @Castncoot: What specific important details do you feel are missing from Version B?

Shakescene, previous efforts to spin off materials have met with some resistance. In the interests of keeping this section focused on the lead I'm going to start new sections for those two in particular, and I'd encourage you to do the same for any other sections you feel would benefit from being summarized/spun off. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

To achieve a length of 120 kb seems ridiculous in addition to being impossible. You do know there are articles with up to 10 times that length on Wikipedia, right? The whole WP:Article length guideline is arbitrary and outdated itself. I also don't mind trimming irrelevancies out of an article, but I am opposed to trimming just for the sake of trimming. Nobody needs to read the whole length of this or any article from top to bottom, I never do so with any article. That's why we have sections, including a lede. The average person spends a few minutes reading snippets from an article. But then those snippets need to provide the information being sought. Manhattan is a sub-article of New York City, so naturally there will be more in-depth content in this article. Many people find these details useful to know, even if you may not. Manhattan is also complex enough to warrant 300kb or even 400kb. Castncoot (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just an interesting observation that occurred to me, given the comment above by Nikkimaria, "Shakescene, previous efforts to spin off materials have met with some resistance ", why was the editor who was offering resistance not pinged for comment? Castncoot (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for comments: Lead section

Should Version A or Version C of the lead be used as the basis for future development? 18:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Version C since it is more consistent with MOS:INTRO and WP:LEAD more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• In general, leads should be thinned down to contain the most critical information to get the point across. Leads shouldn't be long containing a mountain of information. It is not a place to be a soap box or further agendas or marketing fluff. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• The lead of Version A is way too long. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Version C: Agree with Sbmeirow and Some1 that Version A is too long. Version C is a lot more succinct. Version A contains a lot of unnecessary fluff ("The City", the $5000 rents, etc.) and the interlacing of the history (the Lenape para) between the descriptions (the Situated/Anchored and the "smallest county" paras) is not ideal. Most of the material in these three paragraphs can be combined anyway. Version C can do with some trimming as well (for example, the reference to Marble Hill will be lost on most people) but it is definitely in the right direction.RegentsPark (comment) 23:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Version C ..... but this could also use some more cuddling.Moxy- 01:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Version C. An intro is supposed to be as short as possible. Per WP:LEDE, the average reader may only spend a couple minutes on an article. An intro that takes several minutes to read is actively counterproductive, as a reader is less likely to reach deeper into the body where the real info, complete with context, resides. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Version A, as stated before and stated here, is wayyyy too long, and contains a lot more trivial material. I back Version C, and while I appreciate Version A's effort, I believe that more of it belongs in the body. My main concern with Version A's length has to be in its history (similar to an ongoing discussion on Talk:France regarding its lead), and that it names too much of the landmarks, of which there are TONS. I would direct such editor to consider working on Tourism in New York City, and maybe even writing an article dedicated to Tourism in Manhattan if it can be successfully done with editor consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Version C (saw Wikiproject Cities notice). Some of the wording remains odd (based in a timezone?), but the newer version is more compact and seems to group themes a bit more. CMD (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Version C is fine, with the understanding that this pertains specifically to the lede and that removed info may still belong in the body of the article. Castncoot (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented version C of the lead section per the above discussion, since there's a pretty clear consensus to do so. 23.150.152.38 (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Time for a WP:SNOW? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Geography

With regards to the Geography section, do people generally prefer this version (status quo), or this version (proposed) as the basis for future development? Let's have some preliminary discussion, and if we don't arrive at a clear consensus I'll open an RfC to bring in wider viewpoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the proposed version would be best; anyone have any arguments to the contrary? User:Alansohn, did you wish to comment? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As no objections were raised, I have implemented the proposed version. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support Nikkimaria's proposed version. Generally, I'll support any attempt at pruning the cruft from this article (icebergs anyone?) so, Nikkimaria, you have my support for all your attempts! RegentsPark (comment) 20:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support proposed version as clearer and (as per RegentsPark less crufty. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • • • • I think enough editors have notice now. An ongoing discussion here would be more constructive and is looking to be like a pseudo-RfC anyway. Let's give some more time on comment period here, say another week or ten days. This could also just go to RfC now anyway, though I suppose it would be an ambiguous form of an RfC because it leaves doubt as to which parts of the changed info are important to include, as it certainly is not going to stay an all-or-none package permanently anyway. Just for the record, I'm not opposed to making the article more efficient. I just don't want to throw out WP:NOTABLE details, and that's where topic experience helps (certainly not as veto power), because it tells a more authentic story to those, and than those, who don't have topic experience. Castncoot (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
        • As a very specific example, the statement, "Icebergs around the world are often compared in size to the area of Manhattan. not only meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria but contributes content that is quite frankly breathtaking in terms of its superlative quality, as there is no other geographical location (or even other entity, for that matter) than Manhattan that is as commonly used as the standard to compare the size if icebergs to. Perhaps the size of most icebergs tend to be multiples of the area of Manhattan, and/or Manhattan is certainly universally known, but the fact of the matter is that it's an extremely commonly noted comparison. Icebergs occur in and near both the Arctic and Antarctic regions of the earth. Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
          • Notability does not apply to the contents of articles. What is provided indicates that media have used Manhattan as a reference for the size of icebergs; that same claim could be made about many many locations worldwide, from Hobart to Majorca to Seattle, DC, Vegas, Atlanta or Malta. But the sourcing provided does not support that this is something key to the general reader's understanding of any of these locations, including Manhattan. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
            • • Notability refers not to the content stated but to the reliability of the sources AND a certain understanding that this is not an isolated example. In other words, it is almost cliché to compare the size of an iceberg to Manhattan, but the statement as written doesn't go anywhere that far or compare Manhattan to other locations. It simply states that icebergs are often compared to the size of Manhattan, and the reason that is useful to the reader, when stated specifically in the Geography section, is that it gives the reader a mind's eye of the approximate particular size of Manhattan Island itself – for example, that Manhattan is nowhere near the size of New York City as a whole. Note that icebergs are NOT typically compared to the size of New York City. Do you not find this to be useful and interesting information to include in the most relevant section of all, namely Geography? And especially so in the relatively few bytes of space used in relation to the article? Castncoot (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
                • Nope. Icebergs have indeed been compared to the size of New York City[1], and even to larger entities like Connecticut[2]; they've also been compared to the size of a car[3]. Icebergs are of variable sizes and knowing that some are Manhattan-sized doesn't really tell us anything useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
                  • • "Have been"? Yes. "Have often been"? No. It wouldn't even occur to me to include such a comparison in the New York City or Connecticut articles, because that would be a WP:UNDUE comparison. Not so here on the Manhattan page. Why WOULD the media so often compare the size of an iceberg to Manhattan as often as it does anyway, if there weren't a validity and relevance to the comparison? As some examples: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] Castncoot (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
                      • As some examples: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. But the question is really, do we have any sourcing that directly suggests there is a validity and relevance to the comparison, and that it is significant to Manhattan as a topic? Otherwise we shouldn't be implying relevance based only on listing examples, nor giving undue weight to a minor aspect of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
                        • • Many of the examples you've quoted are simply repetitions about the exact same iceberg in question, so those don't count. New York City has 15 times the area and over 5 times the population of Manhattan, and much, much greater complexity than Manhattan. Has New York City been compared to a multiple of 15 or even 5 times (or even the same number of) different icebergs as Manhattan? No. (And maybe if it has, then it should also be mentioned in the New York City article.) Manhattan is but one borough of NYC. Isn't it astonishing that one borough within a single city is compared in size so frequently to icebergs around the world? In BOTH the Northern Hemisphere AND the Southern Hemisphere of the Earth? Can you find me examples of where the other four NYC boroughs (Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, or Staten Island) are compared in size to icebergs? Another point, scientifically speaking, which makes the comparison quite useful is that Manhattan is fundamentally an island, just like icebergs, which may have contributed to initiating its popularity as a reference size for icebergs in the first place. Castncoot (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
        • As another very specific example, Manhattan's history is highly chronicled in a breathtaking amount of literature, but Nikkimaria kindly built up the History of Manhattan page, so this is one example where I believe that the History section in this article can act more as summary content (but while still not axeing important details that should in fact stay on this page). So the point I'm trying to make here is that there are specific distinctions and nuances between different kinds of content that those who have more topic experience on a particular subject might have more insight to contribute. Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

          The whole point of the WP:PROPERSPLIT is to get everything except a simple, short summary out of the main article. Yes, many of the details are extremely notable; if they weren't, they shouldn't be in either article. Details, even notable ones, certainly should not be in a summary. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

          • • But is this a summary article? That's the question. The NYC article was made out to be the high-level article in discussions there. Hence this becomes a sub-article, which naturally will invite more detail, barring involvement of its own sub-articles, including History of Manhattan. Castncoot (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's the way to look at this. Manhattan is a sub article of NYC but has a large overlap with NYC. Architecture, Education, Economy, Geography, etc. Architecture of NYC, for example, is dominated by Manhattan. We should look at this article as a summary style article about the borough, with details pointing to various NYC articles or Manhattan specific articles.RegentsPark (comment) 18:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• The iceberg thing is an excellent choice for explaining why this article needs the WP:SS work Nikkimaria has invested, as it is emblematic of the article as a whole. That particular detail is 100% cruft. It tells the readers nothing whatsoever about Manhattan. The statement is not intended to; the grammatical objective of the comparison is to scale the iceberg for people who already know the size of Manhattan. It might have a place in the Iceberg article, but it doesn't even tell readers much there, either, unless they know how big Manhattan really is. For an article about Manhattan, it is worse than that. Not many people have seen an iceberg and, for most of them, 'iceberg' will summon an image from a particular movie. Unless you want readers to think that 1.7MM people live on something a bit smaller than the Titanic, we are misinforming them. The statement is irredeemable and is literally the first thing that needed to go. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • • I guess I'm outvoted on this one. Moved to Iceberg article per suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I live in iceberg alley and have never heard this comparison before. Moxy- 12:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• As another week has passed and we appear to have a consensus here, I've implemented the proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Castncoot: If you think there ought to be an alternative between the two versions, you're welcome to propose that to see if you get consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, Charles Petzold, a computer programmer, is hardly a reliable source for anything on this page. RegentsPark (comment) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Request for comments: Geography section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was a somewhat heated RfC, but one irony is that in my own careful reading there were far more accusations of transgressions than actual transgressions, though some may have crossed into the latter. So, I'll take this opportunity to remind folks from all points of view that Wikipedia is global and there will be cultural and other differences in communication and editing style, and that's why we assume good faith, even in the face of those differences.

Ultimately there is indeed no consensus between version A and version C. However there are two points that editors coalesced around, reaching something of a rough consensus on each. Editors might benefit from building on these as an outcome of this discussion:

1. Version C does improve some aspects of summarization.
2. Version C removed too much information. Concerns included
   1. Information about Manhattan as a US locality was missing, including but not necessarily limited to the adjacent places table.
   2. The geology of Manhattan needs to be more highlighted in this article
   3. The "National protected areas" section should be largely retained, perhaps under "Landmarks and architecture" instead

(non-admin closure)—siroχo 09:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Should Version A or Version C of the Geography section be used as the basis for future development? 23:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to commenters above: @Moxy, Castncoot, Last1in, and RegentsPark:. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Version C just the summary is best ....I personally think the weather chart should be delegated to the main article on climate Climate of New York City. Prose information on the subject is more than sufficient considering we have a whole main article on the topic.Moxy- 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Version A is far preferable. It is the status quo ante for the past 10 years and there is no reason to change it now. Leaving out important elements of Manhattan's geology is unconscionable, as it is that very same geology that has enabled Manhattan and NYC to become the skyscraper capitals that indelibly define their very identity. Not only that, but the Adjacent Counties list cannot be removed, as that is standard to many if not most major WP:USCOUNTY articles, with the exception of the diagrammatic format, which can be switched to a simple, untabled list. Nikkimaria, is there a reason that you have *again* forgotten to invite Alansohn to the discussion? Castncoot (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I pinged him in the discussion above; he did not respond. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see the relevance between the two discussions, as he has made an edit reversion regarding this issue on the main page. It's a moot point now as I've pinged him. Castncoot (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, please take a look at Rockland County, New York#Adjacent Counties and Dutchess County, New York#Adjacent counties. Manhattan is the borough-equivalent name for New York County, New York, and needs a similar Adjacent Counties section intact. It does not need to have the current diagrammatic representation though, and can be formatted as regular prose like the above examples. Castncoot (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think either of those are particularly useful as presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• And do you know why you don't think either is useful as presented, Nikkimaria? Because you have no apparent adequate or acceptable New York or US topic experience. It's really scary that those without significant topic experience are even allowed to make important decisions regarding the article. Would you want a knee surgeon doing brain surgery? And then even worse, saying, "I don't find this part of the brain useful. Let's either place it behind the knee or dispose of it altogether"? Castncoot (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Version C is better organized, better sourced, and more appropriate in scope. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Version C is much more readable, encyclopaedic, accessible and concise, and better matches guidance for this type of section. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• The Whole Process is a Farce Nikkimaria, in her infinite wisdom, has decided that the only choice we should be given is the false binary of Version A (complete with a dire warning to readers about Geology that This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.) or Version C (in which the word "Geology" has been eliminated in its entirety, but isn't it really short and cute?). You can have (A) Geology and Climate or (B) you can have neither. Nikkimaria seems to believe that as long as subarticles exist, there is no reason to include basic information about geology in the main article, a key aspect of how Manhattan is able to be the home of so many skyscrapers, so much so that Nikkimaria believes that even the word "geology" is verboten. I would be far happier to participate in a good faith discussion where we were given options (1) status quo ante, (2) no mention of geology / climate or (3) some middle ground. That I am forced to choose to participate in a Nikkimaria's slanted process of choosing a package deal of geology and climate and either include both or neither is the absolute wrong way to do this. Alansohn (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• The proposed version C includes a section on climate, as well as content related to geology (just not a separate section). If you would like to propose some middle ground, both versions are in the article history and can be used as the basis for a new adaptation. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Alansohn. A section that has nothing on the physical geology of Manhattan as an island is woefully inadequate. That Manhattan is a political subdivision of New York City doesn't change the fact that it has been an island for millennia and some discussion of its physical composition is necessary to remotely call this article sufficient as the article on Manhattan Island. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Version C: I guess this is becoming an RfC on the bedrock! I agree with Alansohn et al that the peculiar geology of Manhattan is salient for inclusion in the article. It's not called Manhattan Schist for nothing (and, I note that Manhattan schist redirects to this page). RegentsPark (comment) 15:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  BTW, I don't think it fair to dump on Nikkimaria. The article is bloated and can do with pruning and I appreciate her efforts in that direction. It is a fairly straightforward matter to get consensus on what to add back to the article and what should be kept out. RegentsPark (comment) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark and Oknazevad: Version C as proposed does include mention of Manhattan schist / the island's physical composition; it just does not have a separate header for Geology. If there is addition content on geology/physical geography that you think merits inclusion, could you clarify what that would be? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're right. I didn't see that, my apologies. I think that is more than sufficient and a separate section on geology is quite unnecessary. RegentsPark (comment) 21:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• The adjacent counties have been senselessly removed in Version C. They need to go back in, in prose form if not in the current diagrammatic form, to be compliant with the spirit of WP:USCOUNTY. If there is bloat in this article, it's about 10% by byte space. But cutting volume for the mere sake of trimming byte quantity appears to be the major intention of this RfC exercise, where that is the wrong focus. Quality standards need to be maintained as a priority, superseding quantity. Castncoot (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• No Consensus and, yes, I know that's not a !vote; please read on. The level of discourtesy toward (and what to me feels like abusive treatment of) editor Nikkimaria here and in the section below will, IMHO, scare off any rational person. I feel that any Admin who closes this discussion needs to read this entire Talk. Please consider the stifling effect this kind of dialogue has on editors who might otherwise !vote on this RfC -- in either direction, since we know from recent extrawiki history that rage is catnip to some people across any opinion spectrum. I struck my !vote above and will return once the bloodshed abates. Good Luck & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Referring to editors as unintelligent non-New York natives is the norm for these sets of articles..... it's the reason they're in the state they are. For years many many editors ( long timers and newbie) have tried to improve content and accessibility to no avil because of backlash.... just not worth the time and insults for most. Moxy- 23:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah! Got it. By analogy to the ant acacia. Anything that comes close gets relentlessly attacked. That fits the pattern on this talk page perfectly. I can't find a remedy in policy or guidelines for addressing a case where a group of editors behaves in a way that doesn't allow even the prospect of good-faith consensus. Reviewing the archives (and the appalling state of the article) shows just how effective this antipattern has been, as retreat (like mine above) simply rewards the destructive behaviour. An interesting puzzle. I'll reach out to other editors and see if any know of an effective a way to bring this back to a healthy process. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I love the botanical metaphors: catnip, ant acacia, etc. I wonder what the next one will be. I'm neither a New York native nor all that intelligent. But I do have the intelligence and courtesy to know not to go to the Montreal page and start ripping out thousands of bytes, because that would be downright disrespectful and insulting to editors who know Montreal much, much better than I do in terms of nuances, zeitgeist, culture, and geographical relevance. I wouldn't risk making a mockery of the article in the eyes of those who have good topic experience with that city. There seems to be unlimited fascination with New York from editors around the world, and I understand that, but in addition to being a global entity, the city is just as much a local entity, and there needs to be a cadre of editors who safeguard the integrity of the latter. Castncoot (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You should be blocked for this last post of yours Castncoot. You're making several assumptions that are violations of WP:AGF. That you know more about New York than other editors. That they are editing here for all the wrong reasons (fascination with New York!). That you are the safeguard-er of integrity while these "others" don't care about that. Bear in mind that you know nothing about other editors just as we know nothing about you. I suggest you strike out the, gratuitous and presumptuous, comment that you've just made.RegentsPark (comment) 17:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not conveying myself well, so let me try again. Everyone is working in good faith. We all have a different view of what the optimal editing is, and that is what leads to tension. And just as some here think the article is just plain too long, there are others who feel that in the good-faith attempt to make it shorter, that the quality of the article suffers. So everyone is trying to "right" a large ship in their own way, and that naturally leads to turbulence. The seas will quiet, but it takes time, it does not happen with the snap of a finger. Castncoot (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option C with "Geology", "National protected areas", and the "Places adjacent to Manhattan" chart put back in Option C is much better organized, but the section on geology absolutely cannot be omitted, and there's no good reason to get rid of the list of national protected areas, although I would like to see some prose in that section as well. I would put the "Places adjacent to Manhattan" beneath the boroughscape. Reminder for folks to please be civil and AGF. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  And I have no problem with this measured approach. Of course that would look very different from the initially proposed Version C, perhaps we could call it Version B, something between Versions A and C, and that is something I could support. Castncoot (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would just be add back those sections, and add a summary of the geology to the lead portion of the overall section. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the existing content (other than that included in Version C) is almost entirely unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps someone from WP:GEOLOGY can assist with better cites for the Geology section, but from what I see, the second and third paragraphs in that section in Version A were cited. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option C with "Geology" and "Places adjacent to Manhattan" sections retained. Per what voorts said above, as option C is more concise and has a clearer layout. However, I don't think this particular "national protected areas" subsection belongs in the geography section, since almost all of these are landmarked buildings and structures. These may fit better in the "Landmarks and architecture" section if they are included at all. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Good point; I agree with moving the protected areas to "Landmarks and architecture". voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess what we're getting at here is No Consensus for a strictly binary version of A or C. And I'm not surprised. Castncoot (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Landmarks

With regards to the Landmarks section, do people generally prefer this version (status quo), or this version (proposed) as the basis for future development? Let's have some preliminary discussion, and if we don't arrive at a clear consensus I'll open an RfC to bring in wider viewpoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the proposed version would be best; anyone have any arguments to the contrary? User:Alansohn, did you wish to comment? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As no objections were raised, I have implemented the proposed version. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of objections here. Virtually every detail you tried to gut was significant and reliably sourced. Please give people several weeks to comment rather than having a conversation with yourself. Castncoot (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• I did not opine because I misread the comment, believing that Alansohn had considered the edit and liked it. Nikkimaria, I think your edit is clearly superior to the existing text. It addresses the {{overly detailed}} tag objections. I also think that waiting two week for comment was perfectly reasonable. In fact, since it appears that only WP:BOLDing got any response at all, it was clearly the right approach. Castncoot, both your revert summary and your post are unfairly harsh. Not one single person objected in two weeks, including you, which is a pretty clear indication that the community thinks it's a good idea or, at worst, are neutral. Nikkimaria, I am afraid that the RfC route might be required. That is, if you are still interested in helping improve this article? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • • • I support the proposed version for reasons that are similar to those of Last1in. RegentsPark (comment) 20:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where you're getting your timelines and impression from, Last1in, just as you had apparently misread Alansohn's note. Many people edit Wikipedia once a week, others much more frequently. Not everyone is coming across this Talk page all the time to know that there's a (self-) discussion taking place. There is a significant cadre of editors here with actual topic experience of the subject of the article who believe that the pertinent details already reliably sourced are just that – pertinent and reliably sourced. What more can you ask for? Castncoot (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Editors with "actual topic experience" are welcome to contribute their views to discussions, but they don't have veto power; just because they believe certain details are "pertinent" does not mean that those details must be included, if there is not consensus for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

    • "What more can you ask for?" • If the question is about the substance of the change as opposed to the original, I'd say editors could ask for a summary that meets WP:PROPERSPLIT point 6. • If you're asking about the process, I'd say that an editor who asks for comment on a proposed change get input if people object. If input is not forthcoming (and I think two weeks is more than ample opportunity), I think that editor should expect little drama when they make the proposed change. My only critique of the process followed here is that I tend to put a statement like, "I'll make the change on {date} if there is no consensus against it." • If you are asking about the response to the change that Nikkimaria got in this instance, I'd say that they probably expected every other editor to WP:AGF and respond with WP:RESPECT (a good aid to that is WP:WALKIES). That can be especially difficult when you've worked on an article for a long time, but that very closeness can be a trap. It can be hard to see flaws, especially WP:SS issues, in one's own work. It's why authors praise their editors in discussions of every great novel. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

    • • • I think enough editors have notice now. An ongoing discussion here would be more constructive and is looking to be like a pseudo-RfC anyway. Let's give some more time on comment period here, say another week or ten days. This could also just go to RfC now anyway, though I suppose it would be an ambiguous form of an RfC because it leaves doubt as to which parts of the changed info are important to include, as it certainly is not going to stay an all-or-none package permanently anyway. Just for the record, I'm not opposed to making the article more efficient. I just don't want to throw out WP:NOTABLE details, and that's where topic experience helps (certainly not as veto power), because it tells a more authentic story to those, and than those, who don't have topic experience. Castncoot (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• As another week has passed and we appear to have a consensus here, I've implemented the proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Castncoot: If you think there ought to be an alternative between the two versions, you're welcome to propose that to see if you get consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This is normal editing, we're past different versions. Castncoot (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"Normal editing" is also based on consensus. At the moment you haven't achieved consensus for any proposed additions, and there are issues with them that would require resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The game you played is to present two versions with large differences in between and ask people which version in total they preferred, and not inquiring about each statement changed or removed. Asking someone to justify every single statement with consensus is bad-faith editing. I really am trying to WP:AGF here, but I keep arriving at the opposite conclusion. Castncoot (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why asking someone to justify and get consensus for inclusion of individual statements would be bad faith, but asking someone to justify and get consensus for removal/changing of individual statements wouldn't be. You or anyone else was and is free to propose a version of your own, and that might garner a new consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at this. This was already vetted and discussed by people 10 years ago. What makes you think that you know more than those people? That is the height of arrogance. Do you know that an Australian tourist just killed an elderly couple in the US by driving on the wrong side of the road a few days ago? You've already done significant damage to this article, and I'm going to start restoring important material from back then which you've recklessly and cluelessly deleted. I'll tell you right now that I don't storm into locational articles about which I know little about topic-wise and start deleting thousands of their bytes that others who know that location much better have obviously taken great care to edit and source properly. If you really want to help improve this article, then I think the best way you could do so would be to modify a few words here and there, or perhaps to stay off it entirely. Castncoot (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Castncoot:, I understand that you think you are protecting this article, but Nikkimaria's edits are not vandalism. They are a strong effort to improve the article, make it more concise, and address problems that reduce the value of the article to readers. They came to the Talk page before making good-faith improvements in order to build concensus, and they deserve both respect and cooperation for their efforts. They have gotten neither. Attacking them is not a solution, and does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Statements like What makes you think that you know more than those people? That is the height of arrogance, and recklessly and cluelessly deleted are hurtful, unhelpful and untrue. Please consider striking them and apologising. There is also some excellent advice over at WP:WALKIES and WP:COOL, articles I turn to frequently in my own editing and strongly recomend. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. U.S. municipality articles are structured de facto to be longer and more detailed and more complex than those from other countries. My only intent is prevent wholesale destruction of the article by people who don't understand this. Castncoot (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add wholesale destruction of the article to the list of things that are unhelpful and deliberately hurtful. Please desist. Such comments are disruptive and absolutely not within the spirit of WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. Also, I respectfully suggest a review of WP:OWN. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please forgive my brusque style, I realize that Nikkimaria and you are just trying to help. Castncoot (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be brutal and unkind...

When I see all this emotional turmoil, I have to remind myself of how hard editing Wikipedia can be.

I, like many of us here, have spent many hours over several days, with painful attention to sources, clarity, format and prose style, on Wikipedia articles and tables only to see my work misunderstood, undone slashed and distorted by some editor somewhere at some later time — sometimes with perfectly good intentions, and sometimes with a bias or ulterior agenda.

And my natural reaction is bewilderment, frustration, sometimes rage and sometimes leaving the article or table altogether to gather my thoughts, try to see the other editor's view, and sometimes comment on the talk page.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not static, and none of us is blessed with the omniscience and judgement to create a Perfect Article. And once thrown out on mainspace, Wikipedia as a whole (not just the most recent editor) becomes responsible for the article.

So try to understand reactions that may seem ill-tempered. Step away from the Talk Page until you review what other editors are driving at and can craft the most cogent and useful reply.

End of lecture. I hope that wasn't too pompous. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Manhattan History

Great article, but I found the info at notes 44 and 45 a bit hard to follow. 2600:E000:4D3:F848:ADD4:C147:F8C5:EEBA (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean at the sources themselves? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alansohn: regarding your comment here, as per WP:ONUS simply being sourced doesn't require inclusion, and the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. With that in mind, could you explain why you feel these details merit inclusion here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), let's see if you have consensus to remove the small handful of words, which demonstrate that the term "Madison Avenue" goes back a hundred years, which I have repeatedly explained in edit summaries and which is backed by a reliable and verifiable source from the American Association of Advertising Agencies. This fact is particularly relevant here in an article discussing the industry's role in Manhattan. I can assure you that the article won't be too long for readers, even with the inclusion of these dozen words that so greatly offend you. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• If you get consensus to include it of course it can be restored, but despite your statements the rationale for inclusion remains unclear. As noted, simply being sourced is necessary but not sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

¶ The whole sentence looks wrong to me.

New York City's role as the top global center for the advertising industry is metonymously known as "Madison Avenue".[206]

(1) The general reader knows what synonymous means but even I have only a vague notion (or fuzzy memory) of the meaning of metonymous. The overwhelming majority of readers are not Registered Users, and thus don't see a mouse-over from the wikilink, meaning one of them would have to open a new window or tab to understand the word.

(2) I'm not sure that NYC is still "the top global center for the advertising industry"; although I'm not in the trade, I think that global adevertisin is now too decentralized for that phrase to apply any more. It was once true for the U.S. advertising industry, but I'm not all that sure that even national advertising still has a center. Plus the phrasing — cue New York, New York (song) — sounds too much like New Yorkers' obsession (also found at times in London and Paris) with boasting — as infects too much of the NYC article as a whole, especially in the lead. If you're great, you don't need to keep making comparisons.

(3) On the other hand, there should be a way to indicate that Madison Avenue has long been used as short-hand for advertising, in the same way that Broadway stands for live theatre and Hollywood stands for film.

If I were less tired and more focussed, I'd try my hand at crafting a short alternative now, but I'm not up to it now; and, besides, other editors want us to Talk first here before editing.

Season's greetings and happy new year. @Nikkimaria and Alansohn: —— Shakescene (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)