Talk:Spring Street (Manhattan)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Streets (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject New York City (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image layout[edit]

As to image layout, what I have in mind is WP:LAYIM. Specifically: "Images should ideally be ... relevant to the sections they are located in." So -- if "x" is mentioned in section "y", it is best to place it (below the header) in section "y". That goes for the image of the hotel -- it is mentioned in history, not in the lede. And for the subway image, which I have moved twice -- it is mentioned in the subway section, not at the bottom of the section prior to it. I care less where in the section it is place ... if you feel it needs to be below the section heading. But I believe that in accordance with our MOS, as well as what to my eye at least appears more attractive and sensible, the hotel image should be moved down to the history section, and the subway image to the subway section.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Right now, I see the Hotel image lands in the History section, the 2 buildings are in the Notable Places section, below the heading, and the subway image exactly straddles the Subway section. Are you seeing something different? (And, remember, the MoS is a guideline, it is not expected that we slavishly follow it. My ideal is to make the article look good. If doing precisely what the MoS says makes it look good, that's fine, but if it makes it look bad, then that is not good. I realize that different set-ups will show different things, so I'm very interested in what you're seeing, and making any adjustments necessary to have a pleasing result. I'm not so very interested in adhering chapter and verse to the MoS.

So, with the article as it is just now, what do you see? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We have the same goal. To make it look good. MOS is as you say a guideline and will have occasional exceptions, but it was crafted by the community with the same goal in mind.
No, on my computer the image of the hotel is primarily not in the history section. But in the lede. For it to appear in the history section, at minimum it would have to be placed below the section header. That would also serve to make it look better -- because as it is, it truncates the section header line. No need for that. Is there any way in which on your computer that would look worse? That I believe is the minimum -- it would put it in the correct section. It would not cut off the section header line. And it would accord with MOS. What is gained by putting it in the lede, if anything? What is gained by placing it below the section header is those three points.
Same points, and same questions, as to the subway image. It is in the wrong section, per MOS. But also, it truncates the subway header line -- at least on my computer. What is gained in your view by putting it at the bottom of the section that precedes the section that it relates to?
And, btw, continued thanks for your great adds. And -- do you think this should go to DYK when polished?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't generally do DYK, but feel free to do so if you like, I have no objection.

Moving the hotel image below the section header won't make any difference on my computer, so if it helps you, I have no problem with that -- I'll probably do that when I finish this note. As for the subway image: because the subway section is so short, when the image is placed under the section header, most of the image actually falls out of the section entirely, which looks sloppy to me. On my system, putting it just above the section places the center of the image in the center of the section, almost exactly.

Oh, about the MoS, I agree, I absolutely respect it as the collective wisdom of many editors, and I would say the vast majority of it I have no problem with and work to enforce as a matter of course in my editing. There are a few areas where it really needs to be updated or adjusted, and image layout (and page layout in general) is one of them. However, having seen what a mishegas any attempt to alter it can become, I have no interest in spending my editing time prosecuting such a change, and would rather "lead by example" in the hope that people will see the benefit and follow along, and the MoS will (eventually) come along as well. Anyway, that's my philosophy. A few people have taken extreme offense at it, but most folks don't have much of a problem with it.

About your system, could you tell me something about your set-up so I can perhaps take a look and see what you see? What browser are you using, and what's your screen resolution? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So, I dropped the hotel down below the History section header, which (as I suspected) didn't change anything for me, expecially with the new infobox. I also moved the lede image into the infobox and reduced its size while I was at it. (As a stand-along image its size was fine, but inside the box it's rather overwhelming.) I haven't done anything to the subway image, waiting for more feedback from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks. Sounds like we are seeing different things. My screen resolution is 1024 X 768, and at the moment I am using Mozilla Firefox. I've added an infobox. Whatever image you feel is most appropriate, if you feel one is, feel free to put in the box. I usually use 280px width for the ibox image. See if that works for you as well. You may also have thoughts as to adding info to the ibox. Feel free. It sounds as though the only significant difference we have is what we see with the subway image. If I put it below the header -- which is also in accord with MOS -- it also fits cleanly within the section (which looks better) and does not truncate the header line (which the current format does). As it stands, it comes about as low as the bottom of the first of the two bullets, on my screen. I gather yours is different.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying the hotel image on the left, since it was looking a little squashed by the infobox. I'm on Firefox already, so I'm going to try shifting my screen rez and see what happens (I'm at 1366x768, so I've got a wider screen than you do). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me know what you think about it on the left. I would like that -- but only if it were facing the other way. I buy into the "have photos face the center". Then again, I buy into the atagger photos right and left if it makes sense philosophy, as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
It looks OK to me on the left - I don't worry too much about facing in or out, unless it's actually a face, and the angle is severe. And I also like to stagger left/right whenever possible to break up the visual tedium, but unfortunately left images don't work too well with bulleted lists, so the History section is about the only place I think we can do it.

I took a look at 1024x768 (weird to see that again after so many years!) and I see what you mean about the subway image, although, frankly, it didn't bother me. The problem is that with it above the section header it dangles from the top too much for you, and if it's under the section header, it dangles too much from the bottom for me. I did one thing, I cropped down the image a bit (not just because of this, I had been thinking that it needed to be a bit tighter). Does the new size of the image make any difference to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be shutting down for the night shortly - I start jury duty in the AM and need to get some sleep. I'll pick up tomorrow any new comments you leave here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I added an image of Lispenard's Meadows, where the spring was located, on the left, and moved the hotel back on the right. I tried another hotel image (this one) on the left, but I don't think ir worked. Because the meadow image is not very tall, it needs to be fairly wide to show up well. If the hotel image is on the left, and it's less wide than the meadow image, you get a staggered margin on the left, which is annoying, but if it's the same size as the meadow it's huge -- and in both cases it runs well past the Notable Places section header. I normally wouldn't be bothered by that, but, as I said, left images and bulleted lists don't mix well, so I think this combination is the best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I like your adding the image of the Meadows. I would (praps will do it myself right after) change "not" to "now" in the caption. Very nice. I like the width as well. Agree with you as well that left images do not work well with bulleted lists. As to layout, I stand by the comment on the subway image-cropping didn't change things, and if there is a "tie" in which looks better, it seems good reason to go with MOS, which is clear on the subject. I think that is short of slavishly following it -- it would be done having thought it through and measured the considerations.
As to placement of the meadows image, I think it is good. I would however move down the hotel image out of the lede (which does not discuss it) to the section in which it is discussed -- that strikes me as both sensible and MOS. And I would move it further down in the history section than the top, to avoid truncation and to avoid sandwiching (both of which look better to me, and both of which accord with MOS). I would suggest either moving it to the right of the para in which it is discussed (which on my screen looks perfect -- it aligns perfectly with the text), or to the start of the para that precedes it if that causes problems on your screen.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As I said earlier, moving the hotel image down to the section makes no difference in my system, I just forgot that I had done that when I restored it to the right. I've put it back. As for the subway image "A tie goes to the MoS" seems reasonable enough, so I've moved it into the section as well. I think "not" was supposed to be "now", just a typo -- I'll check and change it that's so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
See you've already done it, that was good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI after jury duty today I walked up to Spring and Bowery and walked down to the <6>. I took pictures of the Germania Bldg, Candle Bldg and Lombardi's, but I probably won't upload them until tomorrow at the earliest. Besides, I think we're near the limit of the number of images in the article, unless we want to add an image gallery. See what you think after I upload them (they're nothing fantastic.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
That's great! Hoping to get picked, btw? As to the images, I think that they we are all in accord, except that the one hotel image has not been moved down. I describe the reasons above in favor of it. How bad is it, at my resolution? Check it out. You will be shocked. "In", at the top of that section, is on one line. By itself. The same with each of the next two words.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I was going to apologize for not moving down the hotel image as I intended to, but if you check the editing box, you'll see that I did. I think I know the reason you're not seeing it - recently the behavior of images changed from what it had been previously (a fuller implementation of HTML rules, as I understand it), so that any floating image won't display until the bottom of the floating image above it, even if it's on the other side of the page. I'm going to try something to fix that - let me know if it works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've made the change, it looks good on my native resolution, and I checked it out at 1024x768 and it seems fine on my machine -- how about yours? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
(Incidentally, I like being on a jury, I've been chosen four times in the past. This time I was enpaneled, but not chosen and then was released from duty. Ever since they removed all the professional exemptions in NY, the jury pool has expanded significantly, and one doesn't spend a week sitting around in a room cooling one's heels, doing nothing. Now, a day or two is not unusual (unless you're picked for a jury), they allow cellphone use (in a separate room), and have WiFi for your laptop. A much nicer experience than it was 30 years ago.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Some clean-up needed in the article. I'll put my hand to it, but wanted to mention.

Many in-sentence refs should be moved to the end. They should only appear mid-sentence on controversial points. That MOS, and aides readability as well.

And the sentence in the lede that keeps on being changed to refer to SoHo (not the street) -- please re-read the ref. It clearly refers to the street. No good reason to water that down, and change it so that it doesn't.

Also, its well-known, through studies, that over-long sentences reduce readability. That's why sentences like " It runs west-east, through the neighborhoods of Hudson Square, SoHo, and Nolita, parallel to and in between Dominick, Broome, and Kenmare Streets, to the south, and Vandam and Prince Streets, to the north" should be cut in two if possible, if there is a natural break (as here). It refers to 8 names ... give the reader a break and let him catch his breath. Zero reason to re-join that into a difficult to read run-on sentence that makes the reader gag and get lost.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misreading my change to the second sentence in the lede. Spring Street runs through SoHo, and it is there that it has the boutiques etc. The second clause doesn't refer to SoHo, it refers to Spring Street in SoHo. I disagree about the opening, but if you insist on breaking them into two sentences (I prefer a compound sentence, and expect that our readers are able to handle one) don't break out the second sentence into a new paragraph - one sentence paragraphs are to be avoided. Moving refs to the end, fine, except I've put them in the middle where that source there is more specific and changes information that's in the more general refs at the end of the sentences. - an example is the completion date of the James Brown House, where the designation report for the house says "completed in 1817" while the designation report for the Wood House says "c.1818". The former is a more specific source, so I put the ref there to "correct" the information from the more general source. If you don't think this is necessary, go ahead and move them to the end. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me handle this in bite-size pieces. For now -- the first point. Yep, you are correct, I did misread it. It now says "The street passes through the center of SoHo, where it is known ..." I now get what you are going for. As written, it almost sounds as though in SoHo it is known for those things. My reading was not the natural one -- I was impacted I expect by the prior ref and reaction to it, and remembering those. Sorry. Perhaps I can't improve it. But I shall give it a think. Thanks for your explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Your rewrite is fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Good point on your part. As to the other points above ... I do think that with so many individual facts in the one long sentence two are better. If you like, I can spend some time looking for the research. But I'm sure I've dredged it up in the past. Very long sentences reduce comprehension -- and that isn't just for readers who are mentally challenged, and can't handle it. It's a matter of easing the job of the reader. I'm sure our readers could handle sentences being three times as long as they are -- but it would reduce comprehension. I make the mistake all the time, and am constantly going back and hacking at my sentences. I'll abide by your suggestion of not using a one-sentence para here.
Moving refs to the end also aids comprehension, as the refs serve to break up the flow of the sentence for the reader. And, of course, matches MOS -- except where something is controversial. Here, while I see your point, I don't see anything controversial about those points -- the reader can simply read the two or three sources, and will immediately understand -- if they have any interest at all. Most readers will just read the text. And we will be making it easier for them.
Great work on the photos! --Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with moving refs to the end, I don't think any of the places I put one in the middle are sufficiently controversial or contentious that it has to be left there. I'm rather more concerned about all the simple sentences: I don't want us to become Simple English Wikipedia, and a sequence of simple sentences can actually reduce readability by becoming monotonous - rhythm and pace are important as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Good to hear. As to the sentences, I agree we don't want all very short sentences, and that varying length increases reader interest. But in the example we were focusing on, it was chock full of myriad details and long, and I myself got easily lost. I think we are in general agreement. Best. BTW, it will likely be three or four weeks before the DYK comes up for the front page. Will keep you informed of any problems. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Some good reading, on sentence length:

--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but, really, the sentences we were talking about aren't really all that complex. I do take your point about the clause with all the street names, there's a lot of information there, and you're probably correct that it should stand alone, but a sentence with two independent clauses -- both of which would stand alone as short, simple sentences -- put together with a comma splice, is hardly "complex" in any meaningful way. I know that our audience covers all age groups and people with widely varying educational achievement, but I think that if we aim for a target audience of high school graduates and people with at least some college, we won't be aiming too high. As I said, I worry about the droning monotony of "The Craft Building is located at 72 Fuller Street. It was built in 1876. It was designed by Joe Smith" when "The Craft Building at 72 Fuller Street was completed in 1876 and was designed by Joe Smith" is so much better (not that I'm accusing you of advocating for that degree of simplicity, I'm exaggerating for effect). So, here again, I think we're in general agreement, although perhaps with slight different degrees of emphasis one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought the sentence that we were discussing as an example was the one above. It was full of unfamiliar terms; to expect a reader to hold then all in his head till the end of the sentence was to make him work harder than I think we should. The above examples include 1) one who writes for New York Times readers; and 2) advice for Harvard philosophy grad students. If they can push for short sentences, far be it from us to presume our readers are that much brighter than those two groups. And that's not even the point -- people writing for Supreme Court Justices follow the same approach. Our goal is to convey as effectively as possible. If we can convey more effectively to our readers, that is a good thing. But yes, we may be in general agreement. Good background for us to consider our future editing together. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: the Harvard philosophy guideline - I think it's a general case that the more complicated one's subject matter is, and unfamiliar to the reader, the more one needs to strive to keep the sentences as simple and comprehensible as possible; because the concepts involved may be beyond the general experience of the reader, it's important that the sentence structure doesn't get in the way as well.

I'm certain we can work together well in the future: we argue less than my wife and I do (and we've been together for 20 years) and resolve matters one hell of a lot quicker. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Though I don't think, I was the one to add them originally, I think the just-deleted first two instances of "currently" were appropriate and helpful when they were in the article. They contrast the current status with the former status. I would add them back in.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I wrote then originally. I'm well aware of the problem with being time-specific, so I used them advisedly, for exactly the reason Epeefleche describes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I would urge restoration.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I had already restored one, I've just done the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spring Street (Manhattan). 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 on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 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 (Report bug) 08:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)