Jump to content

Talk:The Dakota/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Removed text

Removed this

The building has a bloody history of suicides, killings and another problems. It's said that it's built on a place were gathers evil forces. Aleister Crowley, the famous satanist, also inhabited the building.

dubious assertion. -- Someone else 06:54, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Altered text

I changed the sentence "the figure of a Dakota Indian keeps watch" to read "the figure of a Dakota Indian keeps watch" because the Dakota are Sioux and that makes it link to that article.--Dakota ~ ° 01:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do the bullets in the bulleted list in the "In popular culture" section not appear? Robert K S 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Myth of "Dakota" name origin

According to "Streetscapes" by Christopher Gray (see p. 328), the Dakota was not so named because the building was so far away. According to Gray, Clark was in favor of renaming avenues on the Upper West Side after new states and territories such as Montana, Wyoming, etc, because he liked how the words sounded. In the same vein, he named his building after the Dakota Territory, not because it was so remote. The remoteness myth first appears in 1933. I'm going to change references to the origin of the name, but it's possible that Gray is wrong and that there are good sources out there that say otherwise. Bhell 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Give your reference in a footnote and report both the familiar myth and Gray's correction. You might even quote Gray direcrtly. --Wetman 04:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

References Cleanup?

I'm by no means a wikipedia expert (don't ask how long it took me to make the reflist link - and me editing to add my signature), hence not making the change myself. Still, to my recollection, this is the first time I've seen a references section with BOTH general references (not attached to any specific facts) along with a {{reflist}} for specific footnotes. Should this be cleaned up? Gnowor (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Took care of it myself. Put in {{refbegin}}/{{refend}} templates and moved general refs to the bottom.Gnowor (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Just revamped the Pop Culture section to read less like a list of facts. Kept most of the facts here, but moved a couple, and deleted an extraneous one (about "The Montana" in Frasier). First off, still need references. Secondly, further integration I think would be good. Thirdly, feel free to add the Frasier fact back in if there's a definitely reference regarding "The Montana" being a reference by the writers/creators to the The Dakota. If you do revert my changes, please post a response (or even if you just want to let me know what you think. Edit: Oh, and I think the Education section should be pulled. Thoughts? Gnowor (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the 1982 pop video to the song Why by Carly Simon was filmed outside the Dakota Building and in the surrounding area - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW8UnXzP3ms

Tenants

The long raw list is just too easy to add to irresponsibly. An anon. IP peppered it with [citation needed]. This is not the way to improve the article. May we have some more references connecting the names on this list with The Dakota?--Wetman (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(In addition I think Carly Simon didn't live in the building - though she may have been refused residency at some stage)

Map Fig

The map doesn't work at high resolution. 190.19.154.181 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Purchase Denials

The last paragraph, starting "Although historically home" should be removed. Although the Board certainly turns down some apartment purchases, it does so because of doubts about the ability of the applicants to finance or pay maintenance fees on the property, or in some cases because it prefers to avoid the undue attention that celebrity residents draw. This paragraph, by omitting reasons, may imply that the Board enforces arbitrary preferences or prejudices against careers or lifestyles of potential residents. Any co-op board has a responsibility to provide financial stability for the co-op and safety for the residents. David Spector (user/talk) 19:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Description, past or present?

The description of the layout of the building lurches from past to present tense and back again. It should be consistent. Either somebody knows what it is like now or it's the original descrption. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


The Dakota → Dakota Apartments – That's its name. It's not "The Dakota", and as someone who uses encyclopedias to learn the actual, proper name of something, it's not helpful to have an unofficial colloquialism. I understand WP:COMMONNAME, but that doesn't apply to the indefinite article "The" — that's why we title the article White House even though people call it "The White House", or United States Capitol even though people call it "The Capitol Building" or "The U.S. Capitol." It's official name is "Dakota Apartments," per the National Register.

Even if we don't want to use that, let's at least remove the "The" as per standard Wikipedia article-title policy and call it "Dakota (apartment building)." If the National Register isn't enough, go to reliable sources from The New York Times to the real-estate site Curbed — they don't spell in "The Dakota" but "the Dakota". Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." What the National Register calls it is irrelevant. What is the most common term used to refer to it? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
COMMENT WP:COMMONNAME addresses whether it's "the Dakota" as opposed to "Dakota Apartments", and that's fine and I've no issue with the former. But that style guideline is irrelevant as to using "The" in the title when "The" is not part of a proper-noun name (such as The Netherlands). For example, the characters "the Joker" and "the Hulk" are commonly referred to with "the," yet because "the" is not part of their proper-noun names, Wikipedia MOS has dictated their entries be Joker (comics) and Hulk (comics). Dropping "Dakota Apartments" then — let's address the "The".--Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:THE: "In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a"/"an") article should be included at the beginning of the title... If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article." — The Daktoa clearly has a different meaning from Dakota, which is either ambiguous or refers to one of several Native American tribes. — or "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name." — I'm afraid I (thankfully) can't quote style guides regarding this off-hand, but I can note that "The Dakota" is capitalised at John Lennon and Rosemary's Baby, but not at Death of John Lennon or Rosemary's Baby (film). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Except "The Dakota" doesn't fall into that exception, which reads, "For example, 'crown' means the headgear worn by a monarch or other high dignitaries, while 'The Crown' is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy."
"The Dakota" isn't an established two-word proper-noun phrase like "The Crown" but no different than with "The Joker" — which similarly has a different meaning that "Joker" yet the article is still Joker (comics), just as this should be "Dakota (apartment building)." Major journalistic reliable sources from The New York Times to NY.Curbed.com do not use the "The" in reference to it, as opposed to "The Crown." Capping "the" in the article title gives a misimpression that breeds inaccuracy.--Tenebrae (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As well, WP:DISAMBIG says that if use of the common name would require parenthetical disambiguation, it is preferable to use a naturally disambiguating name that is less common. So "Dakota Apartments" — the actual name of the building — would even be preferable to "Dakota (apartment building)", as the former has natural disambiguation. And is the actual name. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. "Dakota" is highly ambiguous. "The" is not a sufficient disambiguator. Dakota Apartments is a perfectly reasonable title. WP:COMMONNAME does not say to not use an "official name". That is a perverse reverse-reverse-reading. Dakota Apartments is recognizable and meets WP:COMMONNAME. WP:COMMONNAME does not require "the most common name". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. The Century, 25 Central Park West
  2. The Prasada, 50 Central Park West
  3. The Brentmore, 88 Central Park West
  4. The Majestic, 115 Central Park West
  5. The Dakota, 1 West 72nd Street
  6. The Langham, 135 Central Park West
  7. The San Remo, 145-146 Central Park West
  8. The Kenilworth, 151 Central Park West
  9. The Beresford, 211 Central Park West
  10. The Alden, 225 Central Park West
  11. The Bolivar, 230 Central Park West
  12. The St. Urban, 285 Central Park West
  13. The Eldorado, 300 Central Park West
  14. The Brookford, 315 Central Park West
  15. The Ardsley, 320 Central Park West
  16. The Turin, 333 Central Park West
The proposed Dakota Apartments is not consistent with articles about other buildings in NYC's Category:Central Park West Historic District.
In a related NYC context, compare Talk:Apthorp (apartment building)#Requested move. --Enkyo2 (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose For reasons as above, especially the register of other properties. It's not just the common name for this property but a well-known trope for naming similar properties, whether officially so or not. JesseRafe (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1st words of 1st sentence

The article's opening words were changed by Tenebrae from "The Dakota" to "The Dakota Apartments" here. The discussion above informed a revert here.

The conventional WP view of this small difference is explained in general terms at WP:MOS/Lead section#First sentence and WP:MOS/Lead section#Format of the first sentence. For comparable examples, see the 1st sentences of other articles in Category:Central Park West Historic District. --Enkyo2 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

First, the closed discussion was only about the article's title. Second, nothing in at those links says we should use an inaccurate or colloquial version of a formal, proper name. In fact, "Article openings" at Wikipedia:Manual of Style specifically says to use the formal, proper name, in the Bill Clinton example. Bill Clinton does not open with "Bill Clinton."
How can we possibly make a case for not putting the real name of building in the opening? If I'm going to check an encyclopedia for the name of something, I want the actual name. Using the common name in the title is one thing; baldly claiming that that nickname is the building's name is inaccurate and misleading. I can't believe we need to have an RfC to include the building's real name but I guess we do.
As for the first sentences of other articles in Category:Central Park West Historic District: Other stuff exists but we don't have to make an article inaccurate just because other articles may be. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Original research phrase

"an arrangement that allows a natural migration for guests from one room to another, especially on festive occasions, yet gives service staff discreet separate circulation patterns that offer service access to the main rooms." There is no citing for this — it sounds like reasonable, but without citation it's simply an editor's personal observation of a design and architectural arrangement that may have been done for any of myriad reasons that amateur observers like ourselves might not realize. If this is the true primary reasons not our interpretation, we should be able to cite it. Also, "especially on festive occasions" is fanciful overwriting — the arrangement either works or doesn't, and doesn't work in any different way during birthdays and Thanksgiving.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Official name in building leases, dox, etc? Co-op or condo?

Firstly, someone should add subsection headers to the discussion below the archived RfC because it's already incredibly long enough as it is. Maybe someone brought this up already, but I'm not a masochist to wade through all of that, but what is the official name of the building used on official documents? Is it a co-op or condo? What is the name of the co-op or condo owners association? When the building staff get paid, who pays them? Every building has a legal name that is attached to it for business, tax and legal purposes, also often a fictitious business name in addition to the legal one. Is this information available at all? Laval (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the RfC having been an incredibly long and sometimes contentious discussion, and the aftermath becoming so. The issues you bring up have been addressed — to boil down your general points, the name of a cooperative corporation formed after-the-fact is often not the same as that of the physical building — and the RfC consensus was to use both names. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
To answer Laval's specific questions, as noted above, it's a cooperative, and the registered name of the cooperative corporation is The Dakota, Inc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
New York public records only date "The Dakota, Inc." to 1961, and it is under "Douglas Elliman Property Management" [1] which may be a realty "name" but does not, per se, establish the name of a building or buildings - only the name of the company presumably in charge of it. For example, one might register "Co-Op City" as "The Gnarph, Inc." bit that does not actually rename the project. Collect (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
[2] shows "The Dakota" is a cancelled trademark, and the registrant was "Dakota, Inc. The" indicating that the "the" was not considered an important part of the registrant name (NY lists many thousands of corporations with "the" in their names, by the way). The trademark is listed from 1999 to 2008 -- and is now officially "dead." Collect (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I see a consensus for adding a short mention of "Dakota Appartments" per Beyond My Ken's edit. Huon (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Comments are requested on whether to open the article with the actual name of the building, Dakota Apartments, or the colloquial name of the building, the Dakota. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: As we wind down toward 30 days, please note the scope of this RfC has changed through discussion and compromise. All have agreed to open with the words "The Dakota is." The discussion is now over adding the phrase "a.k.a. Dakota Apartments." In this — and despite the small contretemps below which the parties have since put behind them — it should be noted that User:Tenebrae and User:Beyond My Ken are in agreement. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Dakota is ... Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
To clarify then: Dakota Apartments is the name of the building. The Dakota is the colloquial name of the building. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No clarification of my opinion is necessary, so please don't put words into my mouth. I have written exactly what I believe the opening should be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't clarifying your opinion. I was clarifying the terms used in the RfC. You comment doesn't address what the RfC actually says. Also, you cannot revert to your favored version of the article after an RfC starts.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I can when you change to your favored version immediately before filing the RfC. We call thet gaming the system, and it's a no-no. Per Brad's comment below, I have changed it back to the long-standing version, which is the actual meaning of "status quo ante". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The earliest known reference to the building is in the October 21st 1882 edition of the Real Estate Record. Here is the first known printed reference, "This is the " Dakota," in Eighth avenue, extending from Seventy-second to Seventy-third streets, and about the same distance to the rear, so as to make it nearly a square of 200 feet, Mr, Hardenbergh is the architect," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.89.131 (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.89.131 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC) The article "A Description of one of the Most Perfect Apartment Houses of the World" published in The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 1885 (reprinted in New York Times on October 22, 1884)" begins as follows: "Probably not one stranger out of fifty who ride over the elevated roads or on either of the rivers does not ask the name of the stately building which stands west of Central Park, between Seventy-second and Seventy-third streets. If there is such a person the chances are that he is blind or nearsighted. The name of the building is the Dakota Apartment House, and it is the largest, most substantial, and most conveniently arranged apartment house of the sort in this country. It stands on the crest of the West Side Plateau, on the highest portion of land in the city, and overlooks the entire island and the surrounding country." " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.89.131 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the basis for the assertion that "Dakota Apartments" actually is the formal or official name, particularly today? The only source I see for that is the NPS designation, which while a useful data point, does not control the name of the building and does not cite a source for that being the name.

A quick Google check reflects very few instances of "Dakota Apartments" in New York City. (The search is complicated by noise hits, such as "in The Dakota, apartments sell for ..." as well as references to Dakota Apartments in other cities.) A search for "The Dakota", on the other hand, immediately pulls up tons of substantive hits.

In any event, as a Manhattanite, I can attest that "The Dakota" is the only name in common use and as such, should be the name of this article as well as the name used in the lead. If appropriate, a reference can be added at an appropriate place in the article to "Dakota Apartments" as an alternative name.

Addendum: The owner of the building (the cooperative corporation) is The Dakota Inc., and "the Dakota" is used in sources such as court decisions (e.g. here).

As a matter of procedure, I suggest that the article should remain under the name it had without dispute for many years until the RFC is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (2010). The Encyclopedia of New York City (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11465-2., p.342:

Over the years the Dakota become perhaps the most recognizable apartment building in the city.

p.343:

The Dakota, 2009 [caption to photograph]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Conversely, it's "Dakota Apartments" at the Museum of the City of New York, here (at this URL with a bracket in it, making condensing difficult: http://collections.mcny.org/Collection/[Dakota%20Apartments.]-2F3XC5IW55UU.html) and elsewhere. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not a matter of moving the article. A previous move discussion (above) failed to gain support. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 11:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm afraid Newyorkbrad in good faith conflates the issue: No one is talking about moving the article. We're only talking about putting the formal name of the building in the first sentence. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise – i.e. say "the Dakota Apartments" when the building is first mentioned (the opening of the article), and "the Dakota" in all mentions thereafter. For example,

Dakota Apartments, more commonly known as The Dakota, constructed from October 25, 1880 to October 27, 1884, is a co-op apartment building located on the northwest corner of 72nd Street and Central Park West in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in New York City. The building is widely known as the home of Beatle John Lennon from 1973 to 1980 as well as the location of his murder. The building is widely considered to be one of Manhattan's most prestigious and exclusive cooperative apartment buildings with apartments generally selling for between $4 and $30 million....

...According to often repeated stories, the Dakota was so named because at the time it was built, the Upper West Side of Manhattan was sparsely inhabited and considered as remote as the Dakota Territory. However, the earliest recorded appearance of this account is in a 1933 newspaper story, quoted in Christopher Gray's book New York Streetscapes: "Now Central Park West is among the most desirable and expensive Real Estate locations, aside from the Upper East Side It is more likely that the building was named "The Dakota" because of Clark's fondness for the names of the new western states and territories." High above the 72nd Street entrance, the figure of a Dakota Indian keeps watch. The Dakota was designated a New York City Landmark in 1969, was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1972, and was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1976.

That should be easy to do.Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 11:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that working both names in should be do-able, although I think you have the order backwards, and I wouldn't give the secondary name (with "Apartments") such prominence as the first sentence. This is still dependent, however, on evidence that "Dakota Apartments" is or was the official or formal name, and/or is or was in common use at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest leaving it as "The Dakota". The building is not generally known as Dakota Apartments and switching the name in the lead is likely to be confusing. That said, a search at the Times does show usage of "Dakota Apartments" (e.g., [3] in the headline, and [4] in the lede) in at least some cases so perhaps that is the official name of the building. If that is the case, then we could say "The Dakota (officially "Dakota Apartments) is ...". --regentspark (comment) 11:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Concur with regentspark as having provided a compromise solution. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the National Register of Historic Places — which uses professional historians with access to records the average Wikipedian editor might not — It is also "Dakota Apartments" at the Museum of the City of New York, here (at this URL with a bracket in it, making condensing difficult: http://collections.mcny.org/Collection/[Dakota%20Apartments.]-2F3XC5IW55UU.html) and elsewhere.
The New York Times uses the formal, proper-noun name "Dakota Apartments" as early as May 23, 1904. (Article abstract here with full article available for fee or free to subscribers): text of "BIG CROWD AND MANY MISHAPS IN THE PARK": "Mrs. N. A. Beck, eighty years old, living at the Dakota Apartments, while crossing to the [Central] Park entrance opposite the hotel, was knocked down by a bicyclist…." The Times also uses it at
  • "Flat Blaze Ruins Antique Brocade" (August 27, 1908; abstract [5]);
  • "Says Rich Husband Took Her Furniture" ( June 8, 1910; abstract here);
  • and at least a dozen more times through to at least February 6, 1956 ("About New York; Quakers in Gramercy Park Area Look to Union --73-Year-Old Elevator Still Going Strong", abstract here. The colloquial name went into common use then, but that doesn't change the formal name any more than everybody calling ti "Disney World" changes the formal name "Walt Disney World". (And interestingly, the article Walt Disney World does not use the common name as the Wikipedia title.)
To reiterate, no one is talking about moving this article or changing all mentions or anything of the sort: This is solely about identifying the formal name one time, in the opening sentence, just like at the example Wikipedia itself uses, Bill Clinton. I concur with regentspark's compromise.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I still find the evidence for Dakota Apartments thin, but it has reached the threshold of being given as an alternate name. I remain unconvinced that it was the offical or formal name, and especially that it is the official or formal name today, and it certainly is far less common, so "The Dakota" should certainly come first if both are to be mentioned, and I am unsure that "Dakota Apartments" has enough prominence to go in the lead sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I looked through several pages of NYT search results and could only find two in the 2000s that used the upper case A in 'apartments'. It does look like the term may be an old one. If we can find a good reference that says that the building is officially or formally known as Dakota Apartments, then I'd say include it in parenthesis in the first sentence. If not, I'm not so sure. We might just be elevating a rarely used term. Of course, it is easier to include it with an (also "Dakota Apartments") in the first sentence because if we do want it to appear elsewhere we would have a hard time explaining it if we don't know whether it is a formal, official, or alternative name. Inclusion in the first sentence is the easy way out, we just need to be sure it is accurate as well. --regentspark (comment) 16:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I will ask a simple question. One which then should determine the outcome. What does the sign on the door say? Forget "Common Name" nonsense. WP:CRITERIA States clearly that the title should be recognisable. Using the official title as a page name and mentioning that the building is also known as "the Dakotas" is perfectly acceptable. Especially when this argument discussion is about a single word! -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The National Register of Historic Places gives the name as Dakota Apartments here, and the Museum of the City of New York does so both on its own site and at this NRHP page here. Whether it's used commonly in the 2000s really isn't an issue outside of the article title. As a journalist, when I turn to an encyclopedia to learn what something's formal, proper-noun name is, I think an encyclopedia should give that basic, standard information. And since the infobox says "Dakota Apartments" it's confusing not to have that official name given up front.
It's hard for me to fathom the controversy over providing the formal name — the one that both the U.S. government and New York City's own museum give. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"The Dakota" is the name used in 99% or more of all references, formal and informal, and is the only reasonable name to be given first. I think there is consensus emerging to mention "Dakota Apartments" somewhere; precisely where is dependent on additional information concerning the "official-ness" and prevalence if any of that name. Leading with "Dakota Apartments" before "The Dakota," given the comparison of prevalence, would not be reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please consider the signficance of the online New York City property records which identify the building at Block 01125/Lot 0025 in the Borough of Manhattan as "The Dakota" -- for example, see and here and/or here. --Enkyo2 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Except the capitalized "t" there doesn't appear to be recognized anywhere else. The New York Times, to give just one example, refers to "the Dakota." The Dept. of Buildings just has inputters, not trained historians, populating ACRIS.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the acronym ACRIS means Automated City Register Information System. The online system indexes deeds and mortgage documents. In NYC, ACRIS is maintained by the New York City Department of Finance, not the New York City Department of Buildings. The specific wording of papers having to do with real estate transactions in New York are the work of lawyers.

@ Tenebrae, I think I see your point, but leading with "Dakota Apartments" is not reasonable. The specific language of NYC property records is just one of many persuasive reasons which this RfC has highlighted. --Enkyo2 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right about ACRIS — I'd conflated it with the DOB "Building Information" database (the entry for which here only goes by street address). Thanks for catching it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd already agreed with regentspark, who'd suggested not leading with it but mentioning it secondarily as: "The Dakota (officially Dakota Apartments) is ...." The US government and New York City's official museum both give Dakota Apartments as the official name, but in the spirit of collegial debate, let me suggest the phrase "(historically, the Dakota Apartments)" if that's a more palatable compromise for consensus. I myself don't care for it, but that's the nature of compromise.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I would object to using "officially", as I've seen no real evidence of that being the "official" name in fact, just the opposite. I would not object to "The Dakota, also known as the Dakota Apartments". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we're getting close, but when the U.S. government and New York City's own museum — both of which use professional historians to reach a conclusion and are not subject to the whims of colloquialism — call it "Dakota Apartments," how is that not official. Under most definitions, a government or institutional designation is "official." by definition. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
What is "official" is what the building is called by the owner of the building. Other organizations -- government-related or not -- can have various valid reasons for believing that the name they use is accurate without it actually being true. For instance, preservationist organizations frequently use the original or historical name of a building when applying for designation, and that name is then carried through when the designation is granted. That doesn't make the name "official", simply because it's been used by a government agency. (And, BTW, the Museum of the City of New York, despite its name, is not part of the city's government, it is a private organization which, like most of the city's museums, receives funding from various governmental and private sources. It is no more "official" than the New-York Historical Society. And note the hyphen in the name of that museum, "New-York" was once the standard name of the city, and if Wikipedia was being written then we would use it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
they took the hyphen out and no one sent me a memo ! But seriously, we can't say official without a very good source and BMK is right. Also known as, in parenthesis, is probably the appropriate thing to do here. regentspark (comment) 18:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I was the one who first even mentioned it, but OK, I'm fine with any compromise. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 01:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
And as I recall, I'm the one who offered an alternative to "official" in the first place! So BMK being consistently negative and not addressing a positive attempt at compromise is hard for me for understand. Actually, it's not.
(As an aside, and every museum gets funding from a variety of sources, the Museum of the City of New York is the one officially sanctioned by New York City. And secondly, the museum and the National Register of Historic Places are staffed by professional historians and curators, with more knowledge about these things than we and with access to documents not readily available to us. For us to say we know better than these professional historians, Ph.D., curators, etc., shows remarkable hubris.)
In any event, I've offered a compromise that's accurate and appropriate, even if it's vaguer than I'm personally comfortable with. So let's move this discussion in a more constructive direction, shall we? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
What I meant was, "A compromise would be a good idea. However, I was the one who first mentioned compromising". I never said anything about official names—I have lived in the city for most of my life, and I don't even know what the official name is!
Anyway, there is a possibility that it is actually just "Dakota Apartments" and not "the Dakota Apartments" (see Talk:Bowery). Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Another possible compromise word might be "formally".
Also, there's another question we need to address: If the professional historians at the National Register of Historic Places and the curators of the Museum of the City of New York aren't using the official name, then where did it come from? Did they make it up? And would each of them have made up a name that The New York Times used from at least 1904 to 1956? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
As a clarification, the link above ([Dakota%20Apartments.-2F3XC5IW55UU.html)]) from the Museum of City of New York actually says Dakota (Apartment House:New York) rather than Dakota Apartments in the picture description. My guess is that the building was likely known as Dakota apartments, the A got capitalized somewhere along the way, and that's what we're seeing in the numerous references. Could be wrong. Regardless, pending a reliable and definitive source that says that Dakota Apartments is the official name of the building, we probably shouldn't say "official". Aka is more appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I found out why we're seeing different things on the museum's photo page — the images with full captions appear in pop-ups, and the URL I had above was redirecting to an entry page. Try this URL, from which I've copy-paste the text below (boldface added; The "unknown" refers to the photographer of the accompanying image): http://collections.mcny.org/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=SearchDetailPopupPage&VBID=24UP1G3W04L9&PN=21&IID=2F3XC5IW55UU
X2010.11.1587
unknown
[Dakota Apartments.]
DATE:ca. 1895
photograph
copy print
gelatin silver print
H: 7 3/8 in, W: 9 1/2 in
--Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

As well, here's this from 1980, at http://collections.mcny.org/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=SearchDetailPopupPage&VBID=24UP1G3W04L9&PN=19&IID=2F3XC5IW5UQ7 (boldface added):
X2010.11.1579
[Crowds in front of the Dakota Apartments the morning after John Lennon was killed.]
DATE:December 9, 1980width: 4 in
height: 6 in

Again, we have professional historians and professional museum curators using this term, which appears in The New York Times as early as 1904. Where did this name come from? Did the Museum of the City of New York and the National Register of Historic Places just make it up? Why would they give an unofficial name? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, here's an image from 1924 the museum lists as the Dakota Apartments. http://collections.mcny.org/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=SearchDetailPopupPage&VBID=24UP1G3W04L9&PN=8&IID=2F3XC5UTTDD --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

All of this is quite interesting, but it's evidence for "also known as" not for "officially". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A party in the discussion cannot unilaterally declare an RfC closed. This is generally done by an uninvolved admin. It seems outrageous to me, and highly WP:OWN-ish, to have one editor involved in this declare that he's personally decided on the resolution. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment: "There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly), the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor, or it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Tenebrae, your objection may be well-taken as a matter of procedure, but it's obvious what the consensus here is, and if anything, the wording Beyond My Ken installed was probably more favorable to your perspective than is likely to result if this discussion goes on. Or putting it differently and perhaps more constructively: What do you think the consensus is at this point? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see this as trying to push through something that's "favorable to [my] perspective." I'm trying, as I'd like to imagine we all are, to reach the most logical outcome, and that means not leaving holes. I can't wrap my head around one question: Where did "Dakota Apartments" come from? If it's not the name given to it when it was constructed, then why do sources as early as 1904 use that proper-noun name? Where did it come from? When professional historians, museum curators and a contemporaneous newspaper all use it, wouldn't this make someone take pause and ask? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It probably came about quite naturally, because the Dakota is an apartment house. You can write "The Dakota is an apartment building on 72nd St..." or "The Dakota Apartments are on 72nd St..." interchangeably. They mean precisely the same thing and are equally correct. It's just a matter of style or variety or personal preference, not necessarily anything else. The one thing you shouldn't do is write it both ways in the same sentence; that would sound unprofessional and insults the readers' intelligence. It would be like writing "New York, also known as New York City, is a city". It's only in situations where a reader would be unaware of an nonobvious alternative name that we would need to tell them, for instance "The Dakota, also known as the Nebraska...", but that's not the case here. Therefore, since "The Dakota" is more common usage, that's all that should be in the lead sentence. If absolutely necessary add a footnote, thus: "The Dakota<ref>The building's name occasionally has been written more fully as Dakota Apartments or Dakota Apartment House</ref> is a co-op apartment building...". But even that much is unnecessary. 69.95.62.59 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • PROPOSAL TO CLOSE RfC -- The RfC should be closed. The current version of the 1st paragraph should remain as it is here. The RfC has highlighted several persuasive factors, including:
  1. "The Dakota" is a corporate entity recognized by the State of New York here This fact is supported by New York State Court records Fletcher v Dakota, __ AD3d__, 948 NYS2d 263 (1st Dept. 2012) and "The Dakota" is the subject of published work in reliable sources such as Vincent Di Lorenzo, "Individual Liability of Board Members After Fletcher v. The Dakota," N.Y. Real Property Law Journal (Winter 2013), Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 20-24.
  2. "The Dakota" is the name of the co-op which owns the building. This fact is supported by the property records of the City of New York, for example here
In this RfC, any so-called compromises have not garnered consensus support. As Newyorkbrad guessed here, the RfC has strengthened opposition to alternate wordings such as
In other words, revisiting the first two diffs of this thread:
A. CONFIRMED -- The Dakota is ... Beyond My Ken 20:41, 25 June 2013
B. REJECTED -- To clarify then: Dakota Apartments is the name of the building. The Dakota is the colloquial name of the building. -- Tenebrae 21:01, 25 June 2013
Further discussion at this time is not reasonable. --Enkyo2 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
First point: An anon IP had made POV "probably" assumptions about the origin of the name, as well as an irrelevant comment about the corporation name (many co-ops' corporate names not being those of the building). Second: We still haven't factually (as opposed to speculatively) addressed the fact that professional historians at the National Register of Historic Places and at the Museum of the City of New York, who are not given to colloquialism, use "Dakota Apartments." It is certainly not unreasonable to try to ascertain why professional historians and museum curators, as well as the contemporaneous newspaper accounts, use that specific, proper-noun phrase.
And we can't "reject" the objective fact that such high-RS entities as the NRHP, the MCNY and the NYT use "Dakota Apartments." It's unreasonable to pretend that proper-noun term doesn't exist and isn't used.
This hasn't been a contentious debate. People here largely have been discussing things calmly and in good faith. Closing it prematurely when large questions are still unanswered is not proper — especially when Beyond My Ken and I, at least, actually seem to agree that it's proper to acknowledge the existence of both names. We're all just discussing the most logical and informative way to do it. That's not unreasonable.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
First, I agree that there's no reason to close this prematurely if the requester is not yet satisfied. Let it go the full 30 days so we're sure there is a solid consensus and then let someone disinterested close it. Second, I agree the corporate name is irrelevant, but I never said anything about the corporate name; you're confusing me with Enkyo2. Third, the NRHP is not that reliable; it's full of errors, although that's a side issue. Even so, the nomination form you linked to uses "the Dakota" at least as frequently as "Dakota Apartments" and HABS calls it "The Dakota"[6]. The NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission also uses both[7]. Fourth, I agree it's not unreasonable "to try to ascertain why professional historians and museum curators, as well as the contemporaneous newspaper accounts, use that specific, proper-noun phrase". In answer to your question, I gave you a logical, though admittedly speculative reason. If you think that reason is wrong you need to prove there is some other reason, if you want to convince the majority. To say it must be official because historians "are not given to colloquialism" is speculation on your part. Fifth and finally, no one here is "pretend[ing] that proper-noun term doesn't exist and isn't used". It's just that it isn't used very often in comparison to "the Dakota", isn't "official" according to any reliable source, despite your assumption that its use in certain documents makes it ipso facto official, and isn't important enough or different enough to rate a mention, especially in the very first sentence. "Dakota Apartments" is essentially identical to "the Dakota", just less commonly used, and there is no verifiable reliable source yet provided that shows otherwise. 69.95.62.76 (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, 69.95, and thanks for the thoughtful response. Overall it's been a smart, collegial discussion. No one is saying "the Dakota" isn't the most commonly used phrase — colloquial phrases usually are. But there's nothing I'm seeing that makes it the official name of the building, either. Maybe after 120-plus years — and without digging out NYC records and microfiche of the original blueprints downtown, if they even still exist — the official name may be impossible to ascertain (though I'm not sure I'd blithely dismiss professional historians and museum curators. I'd also suggest it's not speculation that consistent use of a capitalized, proper-noun name ("Dakota Apartments") across several highly reliable sources demonstrates it is official name, since otherwise, where did it come from?)
Keep reading, though — at the end of this post I'm suggesting something that seems workable, judging from BTK, RegentsPark and maybe others. But first, two points worth addressing:
First is the recentism idea that because a proper-noun name isn't commonly used now that it's not of high encyclopedic significance: "Dakota Apartments" was used regularly in everyday newspaper accounts through at least 1956. Second is the presumption that colloquial use is more encyclopedically important than scholarly use — to use just one of countless examples, no one in common parlance uses the scientific name of Opossums, yet it's right there in the opening sentence, as it should be. (And this particular example puts the colloquial phrase second: "Opossums (colloquially possums) (Didelphimorphia....") It's incontrovertible that "Dakota Apartments" is used by scholars and historians to this very day — and not just in scholarly contexts but in mainstream contexts: The Museum of the City of New York uses it on a consumer website where it sells photos of the building.
Regardless, it seems that "also known as," with citing, is the simplest, least controversial way to go, as other editors have noted. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just include both names in the lead and the use them interchangeably throughout the rest of the article. It's not really obvious that "the Dakota" is not the Dakota Apartments' full name, so say something like "The Dakota Apartments, usually shortened to the Dakota..." or "The Dakota, which is officially the Dakota Apartments,..." in the lead.
Anyway, let's see what 69.95, BMK, RegentsPark, and the others think about this. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 15:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you: Using these or some variant sounds sensible, though at this point perhaps we should eschew any reference to "official" and just say what we incontrovertibly and uncontroversially know: that these are two a.k.a. names. (Just to note for the record, it's difficult and not always possible to prove a negative, though that's tangential at this stage.) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Please notice a cite format change here. The embedded link verifies the edit. In 1968, the building was officially recognized as "The Dakota" here. The listing of "The Dakota" in the 1968 National American Buildings Survey (HABS) is specifically referenced in section 6 of the 1976 "National Register of Historic Places Inventory -- Nomination Form" here. The top of the form expressly focuses our attention on specific instructions for filling out this 1976 form. As context, see current version of "How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Form," pp. 8-9.

For purposes of the National Register Information System (NRIS) in 1976, it appears that the word "the" was not used and the term "Apartments" was added as a descriptor. Changes in NRIS decision-making in the 1968-1976 time period appear to be noteworthy. In other words, the national register is an alphabetical list.

Does this help sharpen the focus on the due and undue weight given to NRIS indexing protocols? Is this not at the core of this RfC? --Enkyo2 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that helps, since that National Register of Historic Places Inventory nomination form [8] uses "Dakota Apartments" throughout and in the Geographical Data section. As well, page 8 of the instructions says, "If a property does not have a historic name, enter 'N/A'," and the NRHP form under "Historic [Name]" says "Dakota Apartments," not N/A. I'd note that under "Common [Name]" the space is blank, rather than saying "The Dakota". I'm afraid I don't see anything to support to supposition that "Apartments" — with a capital A, indicating a proper noun — was "added as a descriptor."
Also, the proper-noun term "Dakota Apartments" appears in The New York Times from 1904 to 1956, long before this. Given its currency in scholarly and historic use, including by the Museum of the City of New York, and over 50 years of use in the popular press, I'm not sure it's "undue weight" to include a viable, longstanding proper-noun name. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
@Tenebrae -- Your POV is consistent at Talk:The Dakota#Requested move and here in this RfC thread. Despite this -- or perhaps because of it, a problem of due and undue weight seems highlighted by what you do not recognize or acknowledge. Please reconsider your opinion by looking again at the National Register Information System (NRIS) form here, especially
  • Section 4: Owner of property = "The Dakota, Inc."
  • Section 5: Location of legal description = New York County Hall of Recorder = "The Dakota"
Example (1963):

"... the owner of the land and the building erected thereon in the Bourough of Manhattan, City of New York, known as and by the number 1 West 72nd Street and known as The Dakota, hereinafter called the building ...." at Reel 117/Page 792 (bold added for emphasis)

In other words, those of us who do not mirror your POV are thinking outside the box you appear to create. Our judgment is informed by other reliable sources which are expressly referenced by the NRIS form to which you persistently point. Do you see? --Enkyo2 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm following the guidelines for reliable sources, and the National Register of Historic Places is unquestionably a reliable source for historic buildings. I've tried to get you to look at this NRHP form http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/72000869.pdf, which says "Name: Historic: "Dakota Apartments."
There is nothing "outside the box" of citing the National Register of Historic Buildings for a building's historic name.
The Museum of the City of New York, at links I've previously and painstakingly provided, also uses the name "Dakota Apartments."
The New York Times from at least 1904 to 1956 used the name "Dakota Apartments."
These are all highly reliable sources. You can't choose to ignore highly reliable sources because you personally disagree with them. I'm not saying "The Dakota" isn't used. But likewise, we can't say "Dakota Apartments" isn't used. It clearly has been used since at least 1904, and the Museum of the City of New York uses it to this day. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
@Tenebrae -- Please notice that one sentence of my last diff is struck out. Your diff is not responsive to the point I was trying to make.

Your cumulative diffs do explain the same thing in different words; and the reasoning is well presented.

When your analysis urged us to pay specific attention to the internal consistency of the NRIS form here, was it not your intention to encourage us to read it again? In re-reading, I noticed that that a nested context is expressly recognized by sections 4, 5 and 6. This cross-referencing strategy is part of the design of the NRIS form to which you persistently point.

In this RfC, there are attempts to grapple with an issue which is re-worded in many ways:

At this point, what more is needed? --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to seem dense, but I've been a professional journalist for over 30 years, including for major metropolitan newspapers, and in order to make a living I have to wade through information, make sense of it and present it in plain English to readers. And I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with these lists and diffs.
I don't know that I'm getting responses to the fact that the National Register of Historic Places and the Museum of the City of New York call it the Dakota Apartments, and that The New York Times used it consistently for over 50 years. Beyond My Ken, regentspark, I and possibly others in this excessively long and convoluted discussion find "Dakota Apartments" a reliably sourced alternate name. How can we possibly say the NRHP and the Museum are not reliable sources and that they don't know what they're talking about? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Are we still discussing this? I thought that the consensus was pretty clear and that BMK's edit (this one) adequately reflected that. What exactly are you (Enkyo2 and Tenebrae) arguing over? --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly. BMK, you, I and I believe others are in agreement with BMK's simple phrase "also known as the Dakota Apartments". I had only undone BMK's edit on purely procedural grounds: Once consensus is reached, we ask an admin to close, since none of the participants are supposed to close. I never thought this simple procedural move, made after apparent consensus, would have led to a continued protracted discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Please recall that Newyorkbrad explained to Tenebrae last week, "the wording Beyond My Ken installed was probably more favorable to your perspective than is likely to result if this discussion goes on. Since then, time and research were invested in citing links which put Tenebrae's POV in better focus.
It bears repeating that Tenebrae's opinion and arguments were rejected in the Requested move discussion which was closed on June 18. The subject was re-opened here on June 22. Tenebrae summarized a POV which remains unchanged by discussion:
"First, the closed discussion was only about the article's title. Second, nothing in at those links says we should use an inaccurate or colloquial version of a formal, proper name. In fact, "Article openings" at Wikipedia:Manual of Style specifically says to use the formal, proper name ...."

How can we possibly make a case for not putting the real name of building in the opening? ... I want the actual name. Using the common name in the title is one thing; baldly claiming that that nickname is the building's name is inaccurate and misleading. I can't believe we need to have an RfC to include the building's real name but I guess we do.

In this thread, the argument was sharpened:
Please recall that Newyorkbrad asked for specific links to sources which would clarify "the official or formal name"; and regentspark also asked for cite support about "the official name of the building". In response, we see that the legal name, the official name, the common name is "The Dakota". This is confirmed by the owners of the building, the City of New York, the State of New York and the US government. Links are posted above.

This discussion is a good illustration of a wider issue in our consensus-driven work together. The credibility of our Wikipedia project is harmed by the argument strategy Tenebrae adopts. In specific, the consequences are non-trivial because of what Tenebrae construes "a/k/a" to mean. In my opinion, the repeated evidence of Tenebrae's own diffs is compelling. Tenebrae explained at the beginning that this RfC was about "whether to open the article with the actual name of the building, Dakota Apartments, or the colloquial name of the building, the Dakota." --Enkyo2 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because BMK, I and others are willing to compromise and use the most general wording possible, "also known as," this is somehow wrong? There is no consensus to use solely "the Dakota" because a number of editors acknowledge that the National Registry of Historic Places, the Museum of the City of New York and The New York Times are reliable sources for use of "Dakota Apartments". --Tenebrae (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I and others have been providing links and source citations — several of them. One example: the National Register of Historic Places, which says http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Text/72000869.pdf the historic name is Dakota Apartments. BMK, I and other reasonable editors are not pushing for the word "official." And it bears repeating that the only reason I reverted BMK's "also known as" was purely procedural — it's not "Tenebrae's POV" if Tenebrae completely agrees with BMK! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

[9] appears to be a reliable source for "Dakota" and refers to the image of a Dakota chief above the 72nd street entrance. The NYT uses "The Dakota" on a routine basis. [10]. [11] from the NYT is a detailed source on the name, and states "Dakota" was the name in 1882 in the Real Estate Record & Guide. I rather think this is sufficient sourcing for the simple name "Dakota." Collect (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Collect, the primacy of "The Dakota" is no longer being questioned. Rather the issue is whether "Dakota Apartments" has a place in the lead sentence and, if it does, how it should be identified. The discussion above seemed to have converged, based on sources from the Times and other places, to "The Dakota, also known as Dakota Apartments," but apparently that's still an issue. Reading Tenebrae, I guess he/she accepts that sentence but I'm not sure what Enkyo2 wants to see in the first sentence (Enkyo2, could you give your intended phrasing of the first sentence? That might clarify things a bit.) --regentspark (comment) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You missed the point -- in the original name, "The" was not present. "The" is capitalized as the first word of a sentence, but was not part of the original name per 1882 records. Collect (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I did miss that. Regardless, "The" is a part of the name now. --regentspark (comment) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"The" is in a corporation name. IT does not appear to be on the building proper - it appears to have an Indian chief bust over the entrance. Collect (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"The," from 19th-century sources to now, doesn't seem part of the proper name. The New York Times, for instance, among many sources, calls it "the Dakota" except at the beginning of a sentence.
This was true at least as far back as 1904, and in several instances after through 1956 when it called the building the Dakota Apartments, lowercase t, cap A. (May 23, 1904 article abstract here with full article available for fee or free to subscribers): "BIG CROWD AND MANY MISHAPS IN THE PARK": "Mrs. N. A. Beck, eighty years old, living at the Dakota Apartments, while crossing to the [Central] Park entrance opposite the hotel, was knocked down by a bicyclist…." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I swear I didn't go looking for it — if I were going to take time and look beyond the sources I've been citing I would have done it way before now — but I've just run across a mainstream-press example of the use of "Dakota Apartments" as recent as June 3, here. It's from a real estate magazine. Just sayin'. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae, as a professional journalist, if you were writing an article for pay, would you really write "The Dakota, also known as the Dakota Apartments, is a co-op apartment building."? Would you write "New York, also known as New York City, is a city in the northeastern United States."? Would your editor let you get away with restating a minor variation of the subject at the beginning of a sentence when context clearly does not require it? Those sentences are not incorrect, grammatically or otherwise, they are just not good writing. In the case of the Dakota Apartments, besides being unnecessary it gives undue weight to a variation that is used only a small fraction of the time. No one will be confused if they stumble upon "Dakota Apartments" somewhere, as to whether it's the place described in this article. But if it must be written, the better way is in a footnote or in a separate sentence later in the article or by simply substituting the phrase once or twice in the body. Is this a big deal? No, it's just one of those little things that makes Wikipedia look slightly less professional than it could. 69.95.203.195 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm also an editor, and I can tell you magazine/newspaper writing is different from academic writing and encyclopedia entries. Our primary responsibility is to accuracy, and I can absolutely assure you that in my professional capacity I expect an encyclopedia to tell me what something is called both commonly and formally/historically.
And as it happens, the second sentence of New York City, which opens with the commonly used "New York," reads, "The city is referred to as New York City or the City of New York...."
As a couple of other editors have stated, it seems remarkable that something so simple should engender this much debate. The National Register of Historic Places, the Museum of the City of New York, 50 years of The New York Times and at least one current real-estate magazine all use "Dakota Apartments." These are not obscure sources. It's an alternate name, as editors here in addition to myself, recognize. Once past the whole "official" debate, which we're not debating anymore, the a.k.a. wouldn't seem as if it'd be controversial at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with everything you just said. So why do you oppose putting Dakota Apartments "in a footnote or in a separate sentence later in the article or by simply substituting the phrase once or twice in the body", rather than in the first sentence? 69.95.203.195 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your saying that, and as I've mentioned before, the tenor and tone of this debate overall has been thoughtful and collegial. I think "substituting the phrase once or twice in the body" without explanation would simply be confusing; the reader would rightly wonder why we're using two different terms. As for having it in a footnote, that might or might or might not work if it were an archaic term — and I can't even think of an example of that in this context — but just as New York City, which opens with "New York," doesn't put "New York City of the City of New York" in a footnote, neither should we do so here. When such high-profile scholarly and formal sources as the well aforementioned National Register of Historic Places and the Museum of the City of New York consider it a, or the, valid name, then I think an encyclopedia of all places has a duty to acknowledge that prominently.
And I have to admit I'm perplexed: Given that places like the NRHP and the museum prefer that term — and the latter, certainly, along with at least one real-estate magazine consider it current — I'm quite unsure how it possibly harms and doesn't help the article to put a viable alternate name in the lead sentence, as we do for virtually everything else in Wikipedia that has an alternate name. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In short: The "Dakota" is the building, and it is informally called "Dakota Apartments". "The" is not part of either name. and is just a definite article in usage. Collect (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite there: It's called the Dakota in common usage and Dakota Apartments in historical/scholarly/alternate usages. But for the sake of simplicity and compromise, we've been heading, as in BMK's example, toward just "also known as." You're quite right, however, in that in neither case is "the" capitalized. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Please notice a wording and date change in the last paragraph of the introduction section here.

Compare and contrast a 2003 sentence added to Greenwich here. In 1997, the UNESCO designation of "Maritime Greenwich" as World Heritage Site was not a name change. The article does not begin "Greenwich, also known as Maritime Greenwich ...." Similarly, when this building was added to the New York City landmarks list and to the national landmarks list, it was in no way intended to affect the legal name, the common name, the historical name, the scholarly name, the official name, the formal name, etc.

In the strained context created by Tenebrae's cumulative diffs (including the newest one here), the otherwise practical and constructive process of compromise is worrisome. It produces many unexamined consequences. For example, shall we expect the reasoning of this discussion will play out in articles like The Apthorp, The Belnord, and the List of properties in the Central Park West Historic District? Also, it is not timely to wonder about how this thread will affect the due weight given to the NRIS form here for The Dorilton? --Enkyo2 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That was a bold edit :) I tweaked it a bit. --regentspark (comment) 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
To reply to Enkyo2: Other stuff exists. I'm not sure what appears to be alarmist suggestion that this article will reverberate all throughout Wikipedia is helpful. And I take exception to word "strained", which is designed to create bias: That's your opinion and your opinion but you state it as fact when it's hardly so — I've presented highly reliable and current sources, including a real-estate magazine. Further, if additional research causes us to reassess prior convictions, that's a good thing.
Contrary to any assertion that the National Register of Historic Place is changing any building's name, its team of professional historians found what it states clearly and simply as the "historic name."
I don't believe there is any other editor except you arguing against inclusion of "Dakota Apartments" at this point. Beyond My Ken, regentspark and I, at least, from my skimming of the most recent posts, acknowledge the NRHP, the Museum of the City of New York, 50 years of The New York Times and Habitat magazine. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Please consider two questions:
  1. In the same way that Maritime Greenwich redirects to Greenwich, please notice that Dakota Apartments has been a redirect to The Dakota since 2005 -- see here. This is conventional Wikipedia feature. In the very specific context established by the last paragraph of the introduction section here, is this redirect sufficient? If not, why not?
  2. What weight shall we give this thread as a guide for editing articles about other Manhattan apartment buildings such as The Dorilton, The Belnord, etc.
Perhaps it would have been better to ask such questions earlier? --Enkyo2 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Enkyo2. To address the "weight" question: I don't think there is any weight. Again, other stuff exists. We can only address one article, and its own specific particulars, at a time. Each article is its own, independent entity.
Regarding the redirect: I'm not sure what the relevance is. As the lengthy and well-researched discussions here indicate, additional research has established an alternate name. We can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.
Do these answers help? I'm just not sure what the objection is to include the term when historians, curators and the mainstream press use it. No one's advocating primacy. Would it be at all possible to consider the term in the same way BMK and regentspark, for instance, have? That it's simply an alternate name, with reliable sources, and it's not going to harm the article or even affect it all that much? The building is still called "the Dakota" throughout the entire article. We're simply being thorough and comprehensive, as en encyclopedia should. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a "randomly selected" editor from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service alerted to your RfC. As a denizen of flyoverland I hesitate to get involved in the depth of this dispute except to say that judging from Google, if "Dakota Apartments" is the official/formal name for The Dakota, the official name-users are damn scarce. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No one's saying "the Dakota" is not the common name. I'm not sure what quantity has to do with whether "Dakota Apartments" is an a.k.a. or not when it clearly is at such important scholarly, historical and museum sources as the National Register of Historical Places, the Museum of the City of New York, and over 50 years of The New York Times, for example. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Not a/k/a ...

Is it constructive to point out that Tenebrae's repetitive argument diffs are mistaken because they incorporate assumptions without cited support? The available evidence appears inconsistent with such guesses. For example, Tenebrae urges unverified assertions such as

the "National Register of Historic Places and the Museum of the City of New York consider it a, or the, valid name ... [and] places like the NRHP and the museum prefer that term ...." --Tenebrae 13:38, 11 July 2013
A fulcrum of argument is the misplaced guess that the national registry creates or causes an imprimatur or any form of approval or endorsement of name. It does not. According to the National Park Service website, the "National Register Information System (NRIS) is a database of over 84,000 historic buildings, districts, sites, structures and objects ...."
The NRIS does not claim that the system is designed to function as an equivalent or as an alternative to the property records of the City of New York. Instead, it explains that the NRIS has a normalized, non-proprietary format [which] tells you what files and fields are available to you ... [for] property-specific detail information. In simple terms, the NRIS data is just the "what is where" basic information.
In my opinion, this RfC has been useful to our wiki-project because it helped us to focus more closely on the issues Tenebrae raised for us to consider. --Enkyo2 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I know it's unintentional, but Enkyo2 mistakes my point. No one is saying the National Registry of Historic Place is providing an imprimatur. I'm saying that the professional historians and archivists of the National Registry, the professional curators of the Museum of the City of New York, the professional journalists of The New York Times who used "Dakota Apartments" for over 50 years before turning to the more common "the Dakota", and the professional real-estate journalists of Habitat magazine are not idiots. These historians, academics and journalists specifically and knowingly use the term "Dakota Apartments." (I could provide links to all this, but they're already all above.)
To say we amateur editors of Wikipedia know better than these historians, academics and journalists at these highly RS sources ... I just don't know how we can say that. "The Dakota" is also known as "Dakota Apartments." That's an irrefutable fact. And Beyond My Ken and regentspark agree, so please don't make it seem as if Tenebrae is a lone voice in the wilderness. That's just not accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (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.

I'm assuming it's OK — in fact, required under WP:VERIFY — to footnote some sourcing for "Dakota Apartments," but I didn't want to do so without putting a note here first just to be on the safe side.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, please don't make it even worse. It is absolutely obvious to almost any English-speaking person that an apartment building that is named "the Dakota" might occasionally be called the Dakota Apartments or the Dakota apartments or the Dakota Apartment House or the Dakota Apartment Building or the Dakota building. And if anyone really, really can't figure that out, there's more than plenty of references right here on this talkpage. 69.95.175.101 (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
These really aren't reasoned responses. I'd have to ask for clarification as to how adding citations makes anything "worse." And from this entire discussion it's clear that it's not obvious the apartment building would have more than one name. And references are not supposed to be on the talk page but in the article. WP:VERIFY requires us to cite claims, and given the huge debate over whether that name is viable, it needs to be footnoted. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So if you're just going to do it anyway, why bother asking? Sorry if it wasn't clear why putting unnecessary footnotes in the middle of the first sentence of an article makes the article worse. Guidelines recommend not putting footnotes in the middle of sentences and not putting them in the lead paragraph at all. If they're needed they should be later in the article, preferably at the end of a sentence. There can be exceptions but they don't apply here. Footnotes are not recommended at all where the fact is obvious, as in this case. There is no controversy that the Dakota is also known as the Dakota Apartments, assuming that's what you mean by "viable". The controversy was only whether to mention it in the first sentence because it is such an obvious, rare and trivial variation of the name. You can read more at WP:FACTS and WP:LEADCITE. WP:VERIFY does not require an inline citation, much less two, for the obvious.
Also, the footnotes you use are non-supportive. One uses the phrase "the Dakota Apartments", not "Dakota Apartments" as the article now reads (if we're going to be picky we need to be consistently picky). The other does use "Dakota Apartments" in labels but in the text itself, which is what counts, it uses only "the Dakota", "the Dakota Apartments", or "the Dakota Apartment House". An unsigned, uncertified nomination form is not really the best possible reliable source as defined at WP:RS anyway. It would be better to find a book or a periodical like the Times to support "Dakota Apartments", if it were necessary.
In any case, the RFC has been closed. I don't really agree with the result, because I don't see a consensus in that discussion, but I respect the outcome and have not changed the article. You must do the same, however, unless you reopen the RFC or can otherwise gain consensus for your changes which unnecessarily make the lead slightly harder to read. 69.95.203.93 (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
We do NOT have to have a separate RfC asking whether we should follow the policy of WP:VERIFY. Verification is a POLICY of Wikipedia, not up for debate. You are Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
And you say you want The New York Times? The Times gives "Dakota Apartments" [12] in this headline and [13] in this lead caption. And to address your other points: a lowercase "the" doesn't mean anything; only an uppercase "The" not at the start of a sentence would indicate part of the formal name. And to castigate the National Registry of Historical Places document for being unsigned is plain crazy — it remains an official document of this federal-government registry. You're attempting to reargue an RfC that didn't go your way, and saying that because you disagree with the outcome that we should ignore the policy of WP:VERIFY. That is really sour grapes. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, take it easy. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. That's all I'll say about the insults. As to the substance, of course I agree that we must follow policy and certainly never suggested we open an RFC on whether to follow policy. My point was that WP:VERIFY does not require inline citations in this instance. I respectfully suggest that you are misinterpreting VERIFY. While every fact in Wikipedia must be verifiable, not every discrete fact must have an inline citation. Otherwise we'd have footnotes every six words. Only quotations, contentious BLP material, and facts likely to be challenged must always have inline citations. You suggest "also known as Dakota Apartments" is likely to be challenged, but my point is that that simple fact has never been challenged, even in the long discussion above. It's highly unlikely that any sane person would read the first sentence of the article and say "I doubt it's true that an apartment building named the Dakota is sometimes called the Dakota Apartments - you must prove it to me." So once again, just to be clear, my point is that policy does not require footnotes for obvious facts in the middle of the first sentence. Now maybe I'm completely wrong and other editors agree with your interpretation, which I assume you believe in good faith. If so, someone else will add footnotes. But in the meantime, in accordance with WP:BRD, now that you've been reverted and we're discussing, I request you refrain from changing the considered result of the RFC unless and until you establish consensus that this particular edit is required by policy or is otherwise beneficial to readers. 69.95.62.66 (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"Changing the considered result of the RFC"? No. The RFC consensus was to add "Dakota Apartments." It's beyond comprehension that you'd think we'd need a separate RFC to cite what the consensus said!
As to whether "Dakota Apartments" is obvious, it clearly is not: That's what the entire month-long discussion was about!
You are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and before we have to call for an RFC on whether to verify a fact that was in dispute for a month, I'm going to the admin noticeaboard about your behavior, and I'm going to ask for the article to be protected from anon IPs.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The evidence for "Dakota Apartments" as an alternate name, while sufficient to warrant mentioning it, is still thin, and I am not sure that that mention belongs in the opening sentence. I agree with those who think that an internal footnote within the first sentence of an article, unless imperative, is unnecessarily distracting. If you think the footnote is essential, then we should move the mention of "Dakota Apartments" to someplace out of the lead sentence.

Tenebrae, I wonder if you are becoming a bit too close to this issue and should step away from it for a little while. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I respect you and I've said this in on your talk page for everyone to see. It is completely sincere. So I'm surprised, since you placed the alternate name in the lead sentence — where alternate names are placed pretty much everywhere else in WIkipedia — that you say this now. The alternate name is not thinly supported, unless one considers the National Register of Historic Places, the Museum of the City of New York, The New York Timesand at least one contemporary real-estate magazine as thin support. I'm surprised by the level of animosity about this documented alternate name: Lots and lots of lots of buildings, movies, people, etc. have alternate names and it doesn't engender the month-long debate that was here. The consensus reflected what seems a reasonable compromise solution. It sounds as if you want to reopen the RfC, or open a new one about moving the alternate name. You're such a meticulous and responsible editor that not wanting to WP:VERIFY a contested fact doesn't seem like you. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
(too many indents?) I could propose a simple rewrite that would address all the concerns. Simply leave the alternate name "Dakota Apartments" in the opening paragraph, but out of the first sentence. I still think that unless it is urgent, a mid-sentence footnote in the first sentence of an article is overly distracting. This is a stylistic point, not a substantive one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Brad. I'm just not sure why we'd treat this alternate name any differently than we treat alternate names in countless other Wikipedia articles. We have footnotes in lead sentences all over — in biographical articles especially for birth dates and full / middle names. Having a footnote in the lead sentence is done regularly, and WP:LEAD specifies that items in a lead need to be cited when it's a contentious claim, as this one turned out to be. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that this should not be treated differently than countless other articles. Well over 90% of Wikipedia articles do not have footnotes in the lead sentence. There are legitimate exceptions. One is BLP issues, but that doesn't apply here. Another is a fact that is likely to be challenged. I completely understand your position that this is a contentious claim, but if you read the RFC carefully, you will see that no one disputed the fact that the Dakota was sometimes called the Dakota Apartments. That was established early on. The disagreement was over whether is was an official or formal name (which took up the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the RFC, and was resolved), and then over whether it was important enough to rate a mention, not whether it was used at all. No one is likely to challenge the fact, and if they ever do you can put the phrase back in, simply referring to the RFC in your edit summary. Regarding Newyorkbrad's proposal, I would be fine with that, but only if no one objects. Otherwise we should stick to the result of the RFC - that's what RFCs are for. I'll wait a week to see what develops, but without consensus I think the footnotes need to go. 69.95.175.246 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your advocating for leaving an RfC decision to stand as is, which is what RfC decisions are for. I do need to point out that WP:VERIFY is the standard and we'd need a consensus to override that. In any case, from what you're saying you object to the footnotes for aesthetic reasons? You don't like how the footnote looks so you want to remove it? I have to admit, that sounds odd. Removing verification for a contentious fact because it "looks funny" goes against the very heart of an educational resource. Our primary goal is giving verified facts. Aesthetics is way down the list.
RE: "Well over 90% of Wikipedia articles do not have footnotes in the lead sentence" is irrelevant. First, your figure is unsubstantiated. Second, even if we accept it, this means 10% do because they need them. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Tenebrae has made an untrue statement of fact at WP:RFPP[14] and this article is now semi-protected. I corrected the mess he made of the lead (aside from the footnotes) once, but am now not permitted to do it again, and it's been there several days. Someone might wish to fix it, either with or without removing Tenebrae's insertion of footnotes. 69.95.203.187 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You're an IP-jumping anonymous IP trying to remove footnotes in violation of WP:VERIFY because you refuse to accept an RfC consensus decision. And now that an admin agrees you've been disrupting the page and is blocking you from continuing to do so, you're trying to do an end-run by having registered editors disrupt the page for you. That's really something. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Tenebrae, please take a breath. I understand you hate me, even though I partly came to your defense in the RfC. I realize you're naturally contentious and that you think this disagreement is somehow personal. I understand that you truly believe that I am being disruptive and you are not. I realize you don't understand the concept of dynamic IP addresses. I understand that no matter how many times I tell you that I disagree with your interpretation of WP:V you will still believe you're right and I am wrong. I see that you don't realize I could easily set up a SPA if I wanted to "do an end-run" rather than bring an obvious error to others' attention. I get that you feel strongly about this and that rage can blind you. But I was not even talking about your insertion of footnotes. I was talking about the other mess you inadvertently made "(aside from the footnotes)", which I corrected once without bringing attention to it, but cannot correct again. Other editors will see it, which is why I was addressing them and not you. 69.95.175.110 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
No one is taking this personally but you. I've made my post-RfC points as dispassionately as possible. It's an old debate-club trick to try to tar another side's argument by labeling them the result of "rage" or their position stems from "hate."
I do believe you disagree with the RfC decision and that's the basis for your wanting to remove footnotes. I've addressed your arguments on this, but to reiterate: The fact was contentious, involving weeks of RfC; facts should be verified generally; the talk page is not a substitute for footnotes; and aesthetics is no reason to remove footnotes.
If you'd point out the alleged error, it would be easier for I or another editor to fix it. I don't see the error to which you refer. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
In two short lines above you call me "an IP-jumping anonymous IP" (did you mean that as a good thing?); you say I want to remove footnotes when in fact it's you who wants to add them (there is a difference); you say I wish to violate policy (when I've explained why that policy doesn't apply in this case); you say I refuse to accept RfC consensus (when I am trying to leave the lead exactly as the closing admin wrote it by reverting your repeated changes which have support from no one but you, and are opposed by two editors); you say an admin agrees that I've been disruptive when that action was based on an untrue statement of fact that you made and have done nothing to correct; you say that I'm trying to do "an end-run" when I post something on a public talk page; and you top it off with "That's really something". Sorry, doesn't seem dispassionate to me. And I would hardly label it an "argument" that I would need a "trick" to refute; seemed more like a nasty comment. 69.95.175.110 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
What part of "an IP-jumping anonymous IP" is not strictly and purely factual? Second, no RfC has a separate section saying, "Oh, yeah, and we'd like permission to WP:VERIFY the fact we want to add." Your highly unusual parsing in which permission to add footnotes has to have a separate RfC has led you to repeatedly remove verification, which by any objective standard is disruptive if not outright edit-warring.
The default for Wikipedia is to verify facts. That's one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. What argument do you have for removing verification that I haven't addressed? Once again: The fact was contentious, involving weeks of RfC; facts should be verified generally; the talk page is not a substitute for footnotes; and aesthetics is no reason to remove footnotes. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
What part of "You're an IP-jumping anonymous IP" was strictly necessary other than as a personal attack? And repeatedly repeating yourself about the footnotes doesn't make you right. The reasons for not adding inline citations to the first sentence have been given in detail in the previous section. In a nutshell, you think the fact that the Dakota apartment building is sometimes called the Dakota Apartments is likely to challenged. I don't. As to the subject of this section, I see that you've now mostly corrected your previous error. Thank you. Just two minor corrections remain: There should be a comma, not a period, after "1884", and it should be "on the Upper West Side", not "in the Upper West Side". 69.95.62.57 (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: "On" is perhaps proper, but so is "in" -- Most people would use "in" for geographic locations, however, in common English. In New York City, one stands "on line" and not "in line" but that does not mean the New York idiosyncratic usage of "on" is what we should use here. Collect (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Being a New Yorker, I would say "on," but I left alone the existing word "in" that another editor had placed there long ago. Both usages are technically correct. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The anon IP believes "Dakota Apartments" is unlikely to be challenged. Weeks and weeks of contentious discussion strongly say otherwise, and WP:VERIFY is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
New York has nothing to do with it. People live on the East Side of Chicago and Providence and the North Side of Richmond. And it's too general to say "in" is used for geographic locations. It depends on the type of place. You live in Yorkville but on Roosevelt Island. There's a location in Yosemite National Park but on the Navajo Reservation. Madrid is in Spain, which is on the Iberian Peninsula. There's a truck on the farm but in the city. Maybe it's idiomatic, but I doubt many reliable sources say the Dakota is in the Upper West Side. 69.95.175.178 (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Um ... "In the Iberian peninsula" is widely used. As is "in the Navajo Reservation" referring to location. People do live "on" an island - but that is not the parallel to "on the East side". The NYT uses the phrase "in the Upper West Side" several hundred thousand times according to its archive search.[15] Basta. Collect (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Several hundred thousand times would require 4-16 uses per day since 1851. A search for the phrase on nytimes.com shows it used largely as a modifier of a following noun, such as "in the Upper West Side apartment of..." or "in the Upper West Side-Central Park West Historic District". But you're right, the Times does use it sometimes, just not as often as "on", especially in connection with the Dakota.[16][17] 69.95.62.26 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Try again -- the raw results show well over 400,000 uses -- about half of which fall into your cavil, and the other half do not. That is after looking at the first hundred hits. Other sources: [18] CNBC, ad nauseum. The fact is that New Yorkers say "on" and the rest of the world says "in". Except for living "on" an island as noted earlier. Correcting a non-error is pretty useless. Collect (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The point was that 400,000 is almost certainly wrong. It's the result of a search engine algorithm, not a count. If you search for "Upper West Side" you get 66,200 results. Obviously both can't be right. 69.95.203.115 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(od) Are you suggesting that the NYT only used "in the Upper West Side" only a few thousand times? Gosh -- that makes a huge difference -- a few thousand times is "almost never"? The first hundred hits showed about half using the word "in" in the manner being discussed. <g>. Collect (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly why I said "But you're right, the Times does use it sometimes". I don't know who you imagine wrote "almost never" but it certainly wasn't me. Let's not go out of the reservation. 69.95.62.43 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher

Some note about this high profile resident and his dispute with the Dakota should be noted in the article. It's all been widely reported on and the financial concerns expressed by the building's board precipitated concerns that were followed by the bankruptcy and allegations of fraud at his hedge funds. Is there a concise way to inlude him as a notable resident, the dispute, and the connection to problems at his hedge fund? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

File:The Dakota 1890b.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Dakota 1890b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 29, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-04-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Dakota
The Dakota, a cooperative apartment building located in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, New York City, in 1890. The building, constructed between 1880 and 1884, was designed by Henry Janeway Hardenbergh in a fusion of Renaissance revival and English Victorian styles. The Dakota has been home to numerous celebrities since opening, including actress Judy Garland, football player Joe Namath, composer Leonard Bernstein, and musician John Lennon.Photograph: Historic American Buildings Survey; restoration: Lise Broer
Archive – More featured pictures...

Citation needed tags

{{Citation needed}} was added liberally to the article here. It took literally two seconds to find references, so I have removed them. Also, I converted {{refimprove}} to {{refimprove section}} because there are now sufficient refs. Epic Genius (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"The"

Does "The" belong in the article title? RickK 07:40, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's referred to as "The Dakota". The question is, should the word building be there? -- Someone else 07:42, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Do we have The Pentagon? The White House? The United States Capitol? RickK 07:45, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yes, we have The Pentagon. No, we don't have The White House, but we probably should. No, we don't have The United States Capitol, and we shouldn't: the building is The Capitol, which we have placed at "United States Capitol", probably as a means of disambiguation. -- Someone else 07:58, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of buildings on the Wikipedia do not have "the" in the titles. I see no reason to change that convention, and plenty of reason not to (it would interact badly with searches as presently implemented, for instance). So unless you want to argue that this building's name is in some way exceptional, or that we should change the article title for every building in Wikipedia, it should be changed. --Robert Merkel 08:53, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'd prefer to argue that there is no consistent rule, and (just as some Rock Groups consider "The" part of their name and some do not), that "The" is part of some buildings' names, and not of others, and that the guide must be the way most people refer to them, rather than consistency. --- Someone else 09:23, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No one ever calls it "Dakota" - it is always (nowaday) referred to as "The Dakota" and thus, that is its name. I gather from the HABS report that it was originally named the "Dakota Apartment Building." Buckyboot (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever we decide can we at least be consistent? Half the references in mid-sentence are lowercase "the" and half are uppercase "The". For example:

Originally, the Dakota had sixty-five apartments with four to twenty rooms, no two being alike. These apartments are accessed by staircases and elevators placed in the four corners of the courtyard. Separate service stairs and elevators serving the kitchens are located in mid-block. Built to cater for the well-to-do, The Dakota featured...

If it helps, The New York Times spells it with lowercase "the": http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22The+dakota%22  --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that as of the end of 2014, anyway, the building's owners and operators include the definite article in and exclude "apartments" from the property's "doing business as" corporate name.

Google Streetview 12/2014; sign on scaffolding at W. 72nd ST. & CPW reads:

1 WEST 72ND STREET
THE DAKOTA, INC.
C/O DOUGLAS ELLIMAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
For more information visit, www(dot)nyc(dot)gov/buildings

Rt3368 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

First, this was a huge, contentious issue that eventually reached consensus through an RfC on this page. Second, that's WP:RECENTISM. Finally, the name of the corporation that owns the building and the name of the building are two different things.--Tenebrae (talk)

Lennon

English musician 66.65.120.188 (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dakota/Archive_1&oldid=1167809840"