Talk:Gramercy Park

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

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gramercy, Manhattan was copied or moved into Gramercy Park with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Danielleelbaum.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Gramercy Park

Does nayone know where I can find a map of Gramercy park? Showing it's layout including paths, benches, statues, plants, etc.? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 19:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about private urban parks

It is claimed that this is one of 2 urban parks in NYC, or one of two in NYS including one in Troy, New York, within the Central Troy Historic District, under peer review here. Let's be clear, all such claims are semi-bogus, and/or depend on your definition of what is a private urban park.

Certainly Gramercy Park is a salient urban, New York State private park example. It is very well known because it is separated by roadway from all buildings, if i recall correctly, and it is fenced/gated, and only the surrounding 20 or so buildings' residents have keys, supposedly. However, there are certainly thousands of urban "parks" on the inside of NYC blocks in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, etc., where multiple buildings' residents get access to a common area. It depends on how you define what is an urban park. Do you want to define it to include only blatant, semi-obnoxious, widely publicly-known situations like the Gramercy Park one, or the many situations that involve 10 or more buildings having access, or what. There is no commonly accepted definition of what is an urban private park, and there is no general way to determine how many there are. doncram (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a dichotomy between public and private neighborhood urban parks. Gramercy would be classified as private and LaFayette and others as public. Such parks may have a good deal in common -- size, seclusion, localized utilization, but perhaps no locked gates for the public. On occasion, as a kid living on 22nd St., Gramercy would be open on a Saturday and many of us played there without complaints. Americo275.85.37.146 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of this article and Gramercy, Manhattan

This may have been discussed before, but I'd like to suggest that this article and Gramercy, Manhattan be merged. The situation is this: there are three distinct entities:

Gramercy Park itself, a private gated park, and the buildings immediately around it, which were part of the original development;
Gramercy Park Historic District, a precisely defined area created by the city's Landmark Preservation Commission; and
Gramercy, a somewhat more vaguely defined neigborhood surrounding the park.

Right now, the infobox for the historic district is in the Gramercy Park article (it used to have its own article), but there is a lot of overlap between the Gramercy Park article and the Gramercy, Manhattan article. Necessarily, the article about the neighborhood gets into the history of the park, and, necessarily, the article about the park talks about the surrounding neighborhood. It feels like there is one article too many, and we'd be better off combining the two.

As a resident of the area – when I moved in 30 years ago to a location about 3 blocks from Gramercy Park, where I live (which is now called the Flatiron District) was so undefined that it was described as "near Gramercy Park" – I think that the combined article should be "Gramercy Park". Not only is it a better-known expression than "Gramcery" by itself, but I seldom actually hear anyone refer to the neighborhood as "Gramercy" - mostly people still say something like "over by Gramercy Park."

My suggestion is to move all the information from the Gramercy article into this article, making sure to be clear about the existence of the three entities listed above, and to cover all three within the same article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds absolutely right to my born-and-bred New-Yorker ears. An encyclopedic treatment enfolds all three concepts. List-makers enjoy a separate article for each Historic District: that is not encyclopedic thinking, but gazetteer listing. A sub-section headed simply "Gramercy, Manhattan" might be devoted to the modern realtors' attempt at extending the elite neighborhood.--Wetman (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll be making the change shortly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Archived discussion from the Gramercy, Manhattan talk page can be found here.

You did it wrong, there's Gramercy, the neighborhood, and Gramercy Park inside the neighborhood. --I'ḏ ♥One 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who might be momentarily confused by this post should check User talk:IdLoveOne.--Wetman (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? Is that supposed to be a shot? Not a very good one if it is. But the merge was wrong, you deleted a whole lot of information about the neighborhood and just kept the 'private park'. Gramercy park is just that: A park in the middle of an apartment complex, the apartment complex is a very small and pretty obscure part of the entire neighborhood. The neighborhood has history going back much longer than the park, it's at least a square mile whereas the park is only a couple square blocks. You should've merged this article into a section on the 'Gramercy, Manhattan' article, SEE? Instead the neighborhood was merged into the park. I'm pretty familiar with the area, if people refer to "Gramercy Park" they're not talking about the entire neighborhood. --I'ḏ ♥One 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're totally wrong. I did the merge, and no information was dropped from the former Gramercy, Manhattan article. Instead I added a substantial amount of information to the article which is not about the park but about the neighborhood. And a large number of images of the neighborhood, which I scouted out and took myself. This article is not about the park alone, as the lede clearly states it is about the park, the historic district which it is at the center of, and the neighborhood that surrounds it.

And, incidentally, you are totally wrong about the neighborhood as well -- as the etymology section clearly shows, the "Gramercy" name came from the name of a farm, which was bought by Ruggles to create the park & development, and the neighborhood grew out of that, not vice versa. Its history is not in any important extent "older" than the park, its name derives from the park, and its existence came about because of the park.

Your comments here and below betray a complete lack of historical knowledge, and, to my mind, are coming perilously close to trolling, so you go ahead and comment and complain all you want, but I won't be responding again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should they stop calling it Gramercy Park ?

Considering that parks are generally open to the public, isn't the notion of a "private park" just a garden they're trying to make seem like a whole big park just for an exclusive group? --I'ḏ ♥One 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have it completely backwards. "Parks" were originally private spaces, the landscaped grounds of estates, which were sometimes open to the public. When true public open spaces began to be developed, they were made in conscious imitation of these private spaces (i.e. lawns, landscaping, gardens). Now, we think of a "park" as being, by definition, a public space, but that's not how they started, so there's nothing oxymoronic about a "private park", it's merely a back-formation, like "acoustic guitar" (vs. electric) or "natural grass" (vs. artficial turf). Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting if that's true, contemporarily though Gramercy Park is what we would now call a garden. --I'ḏ ♥One 21:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, but Gramercy Park is not a "garden", it's a park -- a small park, but a park nonetheless. Have you ever been in it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement

The image placement in this article did not conform to Manual of Style guidelines and Image Use Policy. I made minimal corrections to improve compliance without significantly altering size or placements. Which looks better:

~~MoS compliant version~~ Improved MoS compliant version (support changes)
Idiosyncratic version (oppose changes)

Responses

Support as originator. Yworo (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the recipient of Yworo's aggressive and retaliatory wikistalking of me on this issue. (See Talk:Flapper, Talk:Louise Brooks, Talk:Preston Sturges) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not wikistalking you, I'm finding your bad image style judgements (which are really bad I might add) and am attempting to fix them. You repeatedly revert my improvements on every article where I try to make them. Yworo (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both are an eysore. You just cannot marry a large infobox and a large picture in one screen. My recommendation is to leave the large pic in top right, and move NRHP to the very bottom of the article. I'm viewing this on a tiny 1280x1024 screen; will report what it looks like on 1600 and 1920 pixels later, but so far experience tells me that larger displays only make layout errors worse. East of Borschov 12:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are of course right. How's this? Yworo (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't seem much better (well, at least TOC is in its usual place). I'm on a 1920×1200 monitor now. There's nineteen photographs and two maps over three screens of text. A few more than there's in Everglades National Park (but Everglades is twice as long). Note that Everglades example has images spread evenly through the article; Gramercy looks like "all or nothing". East of Borschov 14:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any chance you could do a screen shot of the status quo layout and post it here so we can see what you're seeing? That would help in fixing it, rather than blindly making changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Perhaps you've forgotten that this has been discussed here before. You've been informed about the accessibility issues before. It has little to do with personal preference. Yworo (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you forgot that you got nowhere with this last time? Yworo, you have contributed absolutely nothing to this article, whereas I took it from about 9K to about 42K. I know that you think that you should be allowed to intercede wherever and whenever you want to in your quest to stop down on an adversary, but in this instance your quest is futile, as the article is in good shape, and your "accesibility" issue is the concern not of Wikipedian editors, but the developers. Please go to them with your concerns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to enlarge images: Look at the top of the page. Click Preferences. Click the Appearances tab. In the second section, titled "Files", set the Thumbnail size to your preferred setting. Please don't force your preferences on everyone else. Use your settings. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unncessary Whitespace above footer-navbox

2 people have removed the unnecessary space with hidden comment which did nothing to the reader. See no reason to have it.Curb Chain (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's unnecessary. Yworo (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No longer open in May reference

The No longer open in May reference is now dead and should be replaced with an archive link at http://web.archive.org/web/20110725231044/http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/2007/05/gramercy_park_n_1.php

Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I've taken a look at the sources available on the internet, especially the NY Times archive and the "Valentine's Manual of Old New York". Valentine's has the most specific detail in saying that James Duane was the person who anglicized "Crommessie" as "Gramercy" in or after 1761. The word remained in use until Victorian times. Why Duane anglicized it is unclear - while his father was Irish, his mother was New York Dutch, so Duane was likely familiar with the Dutch language. Many of the other sources, even the Times articles of 100 years ago, are largely speculative or derivative.

Sunnyside Gardens Park

Yesterday I corrected the article to mention that Gramercy is one of two private parks in NYC. Soon after, someone removed my reference and then someone else removed the now-unsourced statement. Yay wikipedia.

Since others think my reference was not good enough, I would like to start a constructive discussion of what would be a better reference?

The claim has three premises:

Sunnyside Gardens Park is a park. I don't think this is under dispute.
Sunnyside Gardens Park is in New York City. I don't think this is under dispute: it's at 39th Ave and 49th St in Sunnyside, Queens.
Sunnyside Gardens Park is private. Here is the list of membership rates and this map restricts who is eligible to join.

Thank you all, 67.247.21.108 (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article is about Gramercy Park not Sunnyside Gardens. Second, you are using a primary source, not comparing Sunnyside Gardens and Gramercy Park, but entirely about Sunnyside Gardens. While it is not disputed that Sunnyside Gardens is indeed private, a park, and in NYC, using a primary self-source not involving Gramercy Park isn't accepted, so that's why I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your addition doesn't support the source. Would you care to use this source instead? It is less reliable than NY Times but confirms your fact: "Sunnyside Gardens Park is one of two private parks in New York City. Unlike the better-known Gramercy Park in Manhattan, which offers membership only to nearby residents, anyone can purchase a membership to Sunnyside Gardens, which was established in 1926." Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about Sunnyside Gardens Park needs to be supported by a genuinely reliable source, not by a blog, per WP:SPS. This is especially true since the counterclaim is supported by a citation from the New York Times. I've removed the claim once again, and it should not be replaced unless it is supported by a truly reliable source. BMK (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I've found another NYT source that contradicts the existing one [1]. Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since your new Times citation is more recent, I'd go ahead and correct the article. BMK (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just done. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've tweaked it a bit. BMK (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gramercy Park. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430093222/http://www.cb5.org/cb5/ to http://www.cb5.org/cb5/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915134408/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/neighbor/neigh.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/neighbor/neigh.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/2007/05/gramercy_park_n_1.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 (Report bug) 01:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gramercy Park. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100512185949/http://www.hotelgramercypark.com/ to http://www.hotelgramercypark.com/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 (Report bug) 07:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayback link had problems, so I replaced it with a ref from the WSJ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gramercy Park. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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 (Report bug) 04:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar in "Ownership and access to the park"

@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for bringing it to my attention that my previous edit didn't make sense grammatically. Here's what I wanted to do:

In the sentence "As a private park, Gramercy Park is held in common by the owners of the 39 surrounding structures, as it has been since December 31, 1831.", I wanted to change the wording "as it has been" to "as has been the case". Both are grammatically correct, it's just that the rest of this sentence is describing an arrangement, which the second phrasing deals with. I'm fine either way.
I also wanted to update the sentence "In addition, the owners of the luxury condominium apartments at 57 Irving Place, which was completed in 2012, will have key access to the park, despite being located several blocks from the park, by becoming members of the Players Club" The building already opened. So I wanted to say "could obtain key access to the park by becoming members of the Players Club" so that the two connected ideas are in the same sentence.

If there's a better way to do this, I'd welcome any feedback. epicgenius (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your second part is fine, but as for the first part, the original wording is better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've reverted the first change. epicgenius (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in infobox

Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG:

Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes.

In this case the first level subdivision is New York state, but the box also had flags for New York City and Manhattan. Also that the i-box may have flags doesn't mean that it must have flags. Further, I sincerely doubt whether the guideline quoted above was meant for neighborhoods.

So, lets take a survey: who wants the flags for the US and NY state (but not New York City and Manhattan) included in the infobox? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Flagcruft. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Pinchot

Under residents, it looks like Amos Pinchot was misidentified as Gov. of PA, which was actually his brother, Gifford. Klavery74 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture section

Was reading this article today and got down to the massive "in popular culture section". Starting reading through it, got to this delight:

2010: In his memoir Assholes Finish First, Tucker Max recounts that he gained access to Gramercy Park to win a bet with a female acquaintance. To satisfy her end of the bet, she was required to give him fellatio while he was sitting on a bench in the park.

Cool stuff. As with most of the rest of the section, it's entirely unsourced. As with any such section, inclusion should be based on secondary source coverage, not merely that an editor saw/heard the subject mentioned in some book, tv show, comic strip, commercial, youtube video, song, etc.

Posting here rather than removing those without secondary sources for now in case anyone feels strongly enough that they're willing to find said sources. No objections if someone else wants to just start removing, though...

Secondary source coverage, btw, should be the minimum for inclusion. Might also be worth talking about the extent to which something features, e.g. comparing something set in the park ("1949: Henry Noble MacCracken's The Family on Gramercy Park is set in the neighborhood.") to, say, the name of the park existing in lyrics ("2000: Jazz fusion/rock duo Steely Dan mentioned the park in "Janie Runaway", from its album Two Against Nature in the lyrics "Down in Tampa the future looked desperate and dark / Now you're the wonder waif of Gramercy Park".") — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image choice

I'm looking for input regarding the image used for the The Players. I am in favor of the image of the building taken by ajay_suresh. User:Beyond My Ken seems to disagree, and keeps replacing this image with an older, lower resolution, overexposed, and blurry image taken by himself. Would anyone like to share their thoughts on whether we should change the image to a higher resolution, more recent photograph that shows more of the building?

#1 Filetime's choice

#2 Beyond My Ken's choice

Filetime (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#2 The resolution of the image is immaterial for its use in an article at small size. The second image is not blurry, and is a better representation of the building and its featured architectural aspects, from a flatter angle, than the first image, which makes it better suited for use int he article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]