# Talk:Commissioners' Plan of 1811

WikiProject New York City (Rated B-class, High-importance)
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.
B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated B-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.
B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Untitled

The article was edited by 207.237.92.187 to state that the plan divided Manhattan into about "200 long, narrow blocks", instead of the 2000 that was previously stated. I've changed it back. The plan divides Manhattan into a grid of dimensions approximately 155 (streets) by 12 (avenues), and 155 times 12 is 1860, which is about 2000. Izzycat 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

## Actual distance between avenues (mostly near 14th Street, if that matters)

I'm calculating this from a series of 1879 Bromley plats on the David Rumsey Map Collection.

• 11-10, 10-9, 9-8, 8-7, 7-6: 900 ft/0.17 mi (100 road, 800 block)
• 6-5, 5-4, 4-3: 1020 ft/0.19 mi (100 road, 920 block)
• 3-2: 710 ft/0.13 mi (100 road, 610 block)
• 2-1: 750 ft/0.14 mi (100 road, 650 block)
• 1-A: 703 ft/0.13 mi (90 road, 613 block)
• A-B: 736 ft/0.14 mi (70 road, 666 block)
• B-C, C-D: 746 ft/0.14 mi (70 road, 676 block)

--NE2 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

## Wide streets

The normal width is 60 feet.

```  It should be pointed out here that the 60' number above includes the 15' sidewalks on
each side. This would make the streets (as determined by the 'blacktop' surfacing)
only 30'. The 100' avenue measurement is also affected, but is not as uniform, with
the sidewalk widths varying. The numbers here (60' and 100') are from property line
to property line.
Frunobulax (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
```
• As I understand it, the sidewalk is part of the property. The 60' and 100' widths are from curb to curb. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am an architecture/engineering professional that is working re-drafting an UES site plan as I write this, which is the reason I am reading about this subject here in the first place. I am referencing the Sanborn Manhattan maps constantly in order to get the property lines correct for a 10 block area. I do not know for certain which way the 'sidewalk ownership' issue falls. But the 60' and 100' measures are basically from brickface to brickface; that is, from the facade of the building on one side of the street/avenue to the facade of the building on the other side. This much I am certain of. Plus, I took a tape measure to both sidewalks and the street to make sure they came out to 60', which they did. Frunobulax (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Block widths (even next to wide streets)
• 212 feet, 1st to 2nd
• 212 or 211.11 feet, 2nd to 3rd
• 192 or 192.1 feet, 3rd to 4th
• 192.1 feet, 4th to 5th
• 194.125 feet, 5th to 6th
• 181.9 feet, 6th to 7th
• 195 feet, 7th to 8th
• 187.10 feet, 8th to 9th
• 184.6 feet, 9th to 10th
• 189.7 feet, 10th to 11th
• 206.6 feet, 11th to 16th
• 184 feet, 16th to 21st
• 197.6 feet, 21st to 42nd
• 200.10 feet, 42nd to 71st
• 204.4 feet, 71st to 86th
• 201.5 feet, 86th to 96th
• 201.10 feet, 96th to 125th
• 199.10 feet, 125th to at least 204th

The information north of 145th Street is mostly from 1879, and was not all built as shown, while the rest is from mainly after 1900. --NE2 11:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

## Major interrruptions

Eh? Rock Center does not interrupt the grid plan; Times Square makes no major interruption, and Grand Central does. Or am I misunderstanding? Jim.henderson 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

## Significant issues

This article has significant issues and is poorly written. If anything it deserves a major rewrite. The following passages from just a brief overview of three sections are not backed up with citations, and include weseal words and puffery.

"In what would become the U.S., the gridiron dominates" "Carson city may have the smallest" "the powerful De Lancey family" "Unfortunately, the land" "The streets of Lower Manhattan were more "organic"" "relatively inexperienced"

and the absolute worst culprit that I came across

"And in the meantime, the Commissioners were, generally speaking, distracted by various other personal and political business; although they met – infrequently – there is no record of what they discussed, or if they were getting closer to a decision about what their plan would entail."

This might constitute original research too. Llammakey (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything is sourced. Everything. BMK (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Then cite it. Otherwise I assume its original research or your not attributing. This isn't a book, this isn't a research paper. Everything must be attributed to its source. Llammakey (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

## Accessibility fix per MOS reverted

I recently made a number of minor changes to this article, including adding a period at the end of a sentence (which is a style choice, I suppose) and converting bold headers into actual wikified headers per WP:PSEUDOHEAD. My edit was reverted. This is a basic accessibility issue. I am requesting that the reverting editor explain why a personal style choice trumps accessibility for subheadings in this article. Perhaps {{TOC limit}} could be used to achieve the desired effect? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no accessibility issue. The headings are simply bolded words, which can be read by any screen reader. There is no need for the subheads under "References" to be hierarchical, cluttering up the TOC. "TOC limit" would affect the entire article, which is undesireable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commissioners' Plan of 1811. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template `{{sourcecheck}}` (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 09:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

## Citation style inconsistency

There are at least four citation styles in use in the article at present.

• Several source-specific citation templates are built using {{citation}}, which is Citation Style 2. These have had `|mode=` added as an option, so they can emulate CS1.
• One source-specific temple was built using {{cite book}}, and several other footnotes also use that and {{cite news}}. These are Citation Style 1, and could use `|mode=cs2` to emulate CS2 if desired.
• Several footnotes are hand-crafted and use no templates. They render output that's not consistent with either CS1 or CS2. In many cases, a space is missing between "p." or "pp." and the page number(s), and some use "Accessed" where the templates use "Retrieved" before an access date, with a variety of punctuation.
• The various shortened citations are hand-crafted and don't consistently display the year of publication, with a variety of formats for displaying the page numbers.

I added the facility for the source-specific templates to emulate either CS1 or CS2. I care not which is used, but the two should not be mixed in the same article as in here without using the mode parameter as needed to put them all into the same style. Those templates can now also support `|ref=` which works with a variety of options for templated Harvard-style references to link between a shortened citation back to the full citation. {{Harvp}} supplies an output that's consistent with the rest, putting the author last names before the year in parentheses and the page number(s). Additionally, they can be used CMOS-style, with the first citation in full and a shortened cite for subsequent references. In any case, I'm moving on. Imzadi 1979  23:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITEVAR. The citations are relatively consistent in their output, the way they read on the page, and that's what CITEVAR is talking about when it refers to "consistency", not about whether the reference uses a template or is "handrolled". How they got there is irrelevant, as long as they are easily accessible by the reader.
The form of reference you used was unclear and practically impossible for new editors of the page to follow. I certainly didn't understand it, and I write the vast majority of the article. (89.5% authorship) Referencing articles shouldn't require a degree in templatology.
Do not make any' article-wide changes in referencing style until you have a clear consensus from the editors of this page to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW, how much text have you added to this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Imzadi1979, in principal I agree with you regarding keeping references consistent within an article. I think you could be going about it slightly more efficiently. Are you familiar with the {{rp}} template? This allows for appending page numbers at the end of references so that the same reference can be re-used multiple times without having to write a new one each time a different page is referenced. I recently made a change to the Cobble Hill, Brooklyn article implementing it. See here and this diff. If done smartly, it would reduce the total number of duplicate citations in this article greatly and allow them all to be grouped into their parent reference. Currently it is unclear to which reference "Augustyn & Cohen" or "Koeppel (2015)" is referring. Your version of the article helps this by adding an anchor link to the correct reference, but by using {{rp}} all these various references can be collapsed into just one for each citation. Each page is still cited directly, just in a way that makes it easier to keep track of the various repeated references. Would it help if I gave an example from this article? - PaulT+/C 03:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and converted all the possible "Koeppel (2015)" references to use the {{rp}} template as an example. It led to a reduction of ~50 citations without any loss in clarity or precision with the references. If the remaining citations were done similarly it would be even more clear and consistent. Let me know what you think Imzadi1979 and Beyond My Ken, is this a good compromise? (Also note BMK, you are getting close to WP:3RR in this article.) - PaulT+/C 04:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted those changes. Read -- and understand -- CITEVAR. You cannot change the reference style as set simply due to your personal preference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You are now at 3 reverts on this page, Beyond My Ken. Also, you are wrong about WP:CITEVAR. Apparently I'm not the one that needs to "understand" it. The relevant parts:
The following are standard practice:
[...]
• imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit;
• fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, and `<ref>` markup problems: an improvement because it helps the citations to be parsed correctly;
• combining duplicate citations (see § Duplicate citations, above).
All three of those bullets apply to the change I made and parts of them apply to the change Imzadi1979 made. You cannot just wholesale revert a change to a page just because you don't like it. Furthermore you do not WP:OWN this or any other page in Wikipedia, regardless of how much you edit it. I'm reverting back my change. Please attempt to understand the benefits of the changes we are proposing. It will make it easier for readers to follow the references if they are in a consistent format across *all* references and citations in the article. - PaulT+/C 15:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You have once again violated CITEVAR without good reason, and OVERLINK as well. Please do not change the reference style as it has been set by the primary author of the article, per WP:CITEVAR, which you still clearly do not undestand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

## Error in "gotham" and "manhmaps" citations?

There are nine references to "Burrows and Wallace" ({{cite gotham}}). Seven refer to pages 419–422 (with `ref name=gotham`), one to page 187, and one to page 447. Are all seven references to pages 419–422 correct? I think there may be relevant page numbers missing when using `ref name=gotham`. Can whoever added those referneces please double check the relevant page numbers for those citations? Thanks, - PaulT+/C 15:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, there are 16 references to "Augustyn & Cohen" ({{cite manhmaps}}). All but two refer to pages 100–106 (with `ref name=manhmaps`). The other two refer to pages 106–109 and 110–111 respectively. I think it is important to have the specific page numbers for the reference, but are there really that many all from such a small slice of 7 pages in that book? I don't have the source in front of me so I can't double check myself, but I can see a situation where it is easier to simply cite `ref name=manhmaps` without giving a new page number. (And given the similar pattern with "gotham" above, I'd argue it is likely.) Can whoever added those references double check these page numbers as well? - PaulT+/C 15:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I added all those references, and they are all correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Since you don't know the sources, what grounds do you have for saying there are errors? So you know the subject matter - you've never contributed to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

## Dashes

The article contains many instances of em dashes and en dashes. Some are spaced, others not. But, according to the Manual of Style, articles should “use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article”. I’m looking for consensus before we conform the article. I’m slightly in favor of spaced en dashes because I see them more often on Wikipedia. Thoughts, please? —LLarson (said & done) 15:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The MOS is an editing guideline. It is not policy, and is not mandatory. Stylistic choices are frequently left up to the editors of the article. Considering that I wrote 65% of the article by number of edits, and 83% by added text, and it is calculated that my "authorship" factor is 89.5%, [3] the choices that I made in writing the article are now precedent, and stand. Your edits changed the long-standing status quo of the article, and have been reverted. Please do no restore them unless you have a consensus from the editors on this page to do so.
I will also note that you appear to be following me around, having moved from a dispute on Template:Cite naming, which I wrote and am the primary user of, and Tenth Avenue (Manhattan) (most edits, most text added, 28.3% authorship) [4] to here. Please stop doing this before it became a matter that needs to be reported to admins on the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Stewardship isn’t ownership and you are not being followed. Stylistic choices don’t permit sporadic changes in an article’s punctuation throughout the article. I encourage you to share your opinion on this matter. —LLarson (said & done) 23:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Please do not make changes without first discussing them with the editors of the article on this page. You have not contributed one sentence of text to this article, which makes you a drive-by editor, and as such, you have an obligation, per WP:BRD and mere common courtesy, to discuss your edits once they have been reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Having asked for input twice, and having waiting some time without hearing any objections to this specific issue, I’m updating the article according to my proposal that we unify, where applicable, the article’s sporadic use of hyphens, em dashes, and en dashes, in accordance with MOS:NDASH.
Finally, Beyond My Ken has made multiple requests that editors of this article seek Talk-page consensus before changing it.[1][2][3] However, when I sought general consensus on harmonizing this article’s haphazard use of hyphens and dashes,[4] and then repeated my request,[5], I received no input on that matter. Instead of mutual consensus-building, I was told that “choices that [Beyond My Ken] made in writing the article are now precedent, and stand”,[6]. I respectfully request that we all engage, but also for us to be “cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks”,[7] and “to work within the scope of policies”.[7]LLarson (said & done) 00:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

If you think it's a good use of your time to change " &ndash" to the absolute equivalent {{spnd}}, then you must have an awful lot of free time on your hands -- or you have other reasons for making such unnecessary changes.
I just looked at the article, and it looks like the spaced en dash is used consistently. I don't see any problems with dashes after a quick pass to replace some hyphens with en dashes per MOS. I may have missed a couple.
I did notice that the references are not formatted consistently, e.g. spacing before page numbers: "p.122" and "p. 122"; "&" used sometimes, "and" used other times; some references have parenthetical years after the name and some don't; some page ranges are of the form "124–128" and others are of the form "224–28"; most with last name first but at least one with first name first; and other inconsistencies.
There is also inconsistent use of the serial comma. This is all minor stuff, though; the article looks pretty great. When you're ready, I suggest submitting the article to the Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page for a copy-edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) The "p. #" vs. "p.#" is easily explained: the latter is easier to read and can't result in a line break between the "p." and the number, so I prefer it, but Wikipedia's citation templates generate "p. #", and can't be altered. Also, I avoid using "&" whenever possible, as it is informal and therefore not encyclopedic, but, again, the Wikipedia citations templates generate "&" before the last of multiple editors. There's a "lastauthoramp" option, but no "lastauthorand" option. All citations should have the year parenthesized after the author's name (last name first), so if you see that, it's a mistake. It was my intention to use the final serial commas wherever appropriate, so, again, if you don't see it, that's an oversight. I prefer "124-28" over "124-128", but other editors come along and change it under the impression (I suppose) that the latter is more precise in some way; I can only recall seeing the former used in reliable sources. (I don't know what the various referencing conventions say).
I agree, pretty minor stuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I fixed the one example I could find of firstname lastname, no parens for year. If there are others, please feel free to fix them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Re all of the explanations above: WP's guidelines strongly discourage inconsistency within an article while often allowing inconsistencies between different articles. If there are inconsistencies within an article that you care deeply about, it is to your benefit to make those items consistent with one another. If you do not, you leave the article open to editors stopping by to make things consistent in a way that you may not like. Most of the inconsistencies in this article have to do with CITEVAR; I suggest that you pick a style and stick to it. If fixing inconsistency is not something you are good at, ask for specific help from a gnome. We all have strengths and weaknesses. As for the "p.222" spacing and line breaking problem, a {{nbsp}} might fix that for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• The difference between “` &ndash; `” and “`{{spnd}}`” is that the latter inserts a non-breaking space before the en dash
• Wikipedia’s CS1 citation templates (like {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}, but not usually {{citation}}) provide a non-breaking space between the “p.” or “pp.” and the page number; Jonesey95’s {{nbsp}} suggestion is the perfect solution for citations outside templates
• For the difference between “124–28” and “124–128”, MOS:NUMRANGE says that “number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between, e.g. pp. 1902–1911,  entries 342–349” but states that WP:CITEVAR provides for variation here, so we should follow Beyond My Ken’s lead and use the “124–28” variety
• Usually, only {{citation}} (but not CS1 citation templates) adds an ampersand before the final author name and I understand Beyond My Ken doesn’t want ampersands here either, so I’ll remove them where they’re not quoted
• Submitting this article to WP:GOCER after some time to reduce more inconsistencies is another excellent idea
Again, many thanks. —LLarson (said & done) 18:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

## "Weasel words"

Beyond My Ken reverted my addition of the {{weasel inline}} template to this sentence I found vague and find unencyclopedic: “By the time of the passage of the federal Land Ordinance of 1785, the grid plan was firmly established”. The edit summary says “sourced, sop not weasal”  [sic], but I’m not sure what that means either. Thoughts, please? —LLarson (said & done) 23:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It means "Sourced, so not weasel" - the "p" is a typo, as is the "a" in "weasel". The language of the statement is directly supported by the sources used, so they cannot be weasel words:

Following the Federal Land Ordnance of 1785, the grid plan was effectively law for every American city. (Higgins, p.68)

But even if the sentence wasn't directly supported by a citation, it does not qualify as WP:WEASEL:

Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.

There is nothing ambiguous or vague about the sentence By the time of the passage of the federal Land Ordinance of 1785, the grid plan was firmly established. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

## "Failed verification"

The sentence Often the streets intended to intersect at right angles would not quite do so. was marked as "failed verification, but, in fact, one of the sources cited, Koeppel, on pages 25-26 says:

As to the cross street, "Gerck, no doubt, intended the streets laid down by should be at right angles to those Roads," a later Common Lands surveyor notes, "but they were not so laid out on the ground."

I have removed the "failed verification" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

## "Awkward"

The following sentence was tagged as "awkward" for the reason that it had too many sub-clauses:

"The streets of lower Manhattan had, for the most part, developed organically as the colony of New Amsterdam – which became New York when the British took it over from the Dutch without firing a shot in 1664 – grew."

I would agree to removing "without firing a shot" and doing some tweaking so that the sentence would read:

"The streets of lower Manhattan had, for the most part, developed organically as the colony of New Amsterdam – which became New York in 1664 when the British took it over – grew."

If this is agreeable to other editors, I will file an edit request for an admin to make the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Why not just make it two sentences? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
What would those two sentences be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

## Pedantic and picayune dispute

Original sentence:

In what would become the United States, the gridiron now predominates. In areas that were under Spanish control, the 1753 Laws of the Indies specified the use of the gridiron, and the results can be seen in Santa Fe, New Mexico; Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Diego; San Francisco; and Los Angeles, just as they can in Buenos Aires and Mexico City.

...and the results can be seen in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Diego; San Francisco; and Los Angeles, California, just as they can in Buenos Aires, Argentina and Mexico City, Mexico.

Partial revert by Llarson:

...and the results can be seen in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico, San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, California, as well as in Buenos Aires and Mexico City.

Attempted compromise by me:

...and the results can be seen in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, California; as well as in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Mexico City, Mexico.

Llarson reverted this with the claim that "Deviation from standard punctuation requires consensus; linking to nations, after cities in them, in this sentence, violates WP:SURPRISE" [5]

Llarson's claim is, of course, complete nonsense. I list and link two cities in New Mexico, and then link New Mexico separately, not as part of the link to one of the cities. The same for three cities in California. There's no "surprise" there, and the punctuation is perfectly acceptable. Opinions about this entirely stupid, pedantic, and picayune piece of harassment by Llarson? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral pointers have been posted on the talk pages of the two WikiProjects which list this article as under their purview. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding punctuation only: The final "attempted compromise" version is the closest to unambiguous standard English punctuation. A semicolon is needed after "Argentina" for consistency. I offer no opinion on the linking and WP:SURPRISE. Also, characterizing a reasonable revert based on a supplement to a guideline as "harassment" is excessive; I suggest that you tone it down and AGF. Discussing it here was a good choice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I have no doubt that on immediate inspection the edit does not seem to be harassment, but there is history between the editor and myself -- which I'd prefer not to go into -- which lead me to that assessment.
I agree about the semi-colon after "Argentina".
I'd like to offer this as another attempt at compromise:

In what would become the United States, the gridiron now predominates. In areas that were under Spanish control, the 1753 Laws of the Indies specified the use of the gridiron, and the results can be seen in the U.S. in New Mexico (Santa Fe and Albuquerque), and in California (San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles), as well as in Buenos Aires, Argentina and Mexico City, Mexico.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jonesey95, Beyond My Ken, and Kjm16216: Concerning only the punctuation and not the phrasing or sentence structure, I’d prefer a variation on Beyond My Ken’s first proposed compromise, but where we don’t link to California, New Mexico, Argentina, or Mexico, because a “good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you’re about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from”. The answer to that question is: no, Argentina, for example, doesn’t help us understand the 1811 Commissioners’ Plan article.
My revised proposal to compromise is:
`and the results can be seen in [[Santa Fe, New Mexico|Santa Fe]] and [[Albuquerque, New Mexico]], [[San Diego]], [[San Francisco]], and [[Los Angeles, California]],<ref>Higgins, p.{{nbsp}}76</ref> as well as in [[Buenos Aires, Argentina]], and [[Mexico City, Mexico]].<ref name=citygridch1/>`
which would produce:
and the results can be seen in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico, San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, California,[1] as well as in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Mexico City, Mexico.[2]

References

1. ^ Higgins, p. 76
2. ^ Koeppel (2015), pp. 1–16
I would also support the same solution but with semicolons:
`and the results can be seen in [[Santa Fe, New Mexico|Santa Fe]] and [[Albuquerque, New Mexico]]; [[San Diego]], [[San Francisco]], and [[Los Angeles, California]];<ref>Higgins, p.{{nbsp}}76</ref> as well as in [[Buenos Aires, Argentina]]; and [[Mexico City, Mexico]].<ref name=citygridch1/>`
which would produce:
and the results can be seen in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, California;[1] as well as in Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Mexico City, Mexico.[2]

References

1. ^ Higgins, p. 76
2. ^ Koeppel (2015), pp. 1–16
Thank you, —LLarson (said & done) 16:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── They are all fine with me. My main objection was the Alb, NM; SF, NM; (bunch of CA cities but no CA reference)... Just wanted them referenced consistently. Thanks all who contributed. kjm16216 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"New Mexico" is a location attribute connected to both Santa Fe and Albuquerque, which is why it should be a separate link and not connected only to the last listed of those cities. The same goes for "California" and the three cities listed there: the state link should be independent of any city, not connected to one of them.
I would have no problem with removing the state links entirely, as the article is about city street grids, so that it goes:
...and the results can be seen in Santa Fe, Albuquerque, San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, as well as in Buenos Aires and Mexico City.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I think Beyond My Ken’s last proposal is best – that’s:
`and the results can be seen in [[Santa Fe, New Mexico|Santa Fe]], [[Albuquerque, New Mexico|Albuquerque]], [[San Diego]], [[San Francisco]], and [[Los Angeles]],<ref>Higgins, p.{{nbsp}}76</ref> as well as in [[Buenos Aires]] and [[Mexico City]].<ref name=citygridch1/>`
which produces:
and the results can be seen in Santa Fe, Albuquerque, San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles,[1] as well as in Buenos Aires and Mexico City.[2]
Thank you, —LLarson (said & done) 19:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Higgins, p. 76
2. ^ Koeppel (2015), pp. 1–16
Since you and I are the primary disputants, and the change would appear to account for kjm16216's concern, I will ,ake the change to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

## Removal of sourced information

An editor is attempting to remove sourced information from the article. The opinions expressed in the sentences being removed come directly from the sources cited. Sourced information should not be removed from an article without a consensus on the talk page to do so. I've opened this section up fro discussion, and per WP:STATUSQUO, the article should remain in the satus quop ante while discussion is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

None of the content removed by was encyclopedic. Neither excerpt was quoted, neither had its part of its sentence cited – yes, status quo ante, but not if it’s uncited. Even if the content matched their sources, both were tangential, weasel-worded, and appropriate for a novel or history book, but not for an encyclopedia entry. —LLarson (said & done) 14:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Specific sources have been added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:WEASEL:

The examples above [of "weasel words"] are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles. (emphassis added)

Higgins p.55 "Many historians contend that the grid plan proper was invented in about 2154 BCE in the Indus Valley city of Modenjo-daro, and was subsequently imported to Greece by an anopnymous traveler fro India."
Koeppel p.2 "...a concept he did not invent but probably knew or heard of from previous, now lost, examples."
Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)