Talk:Manhattan/Archive 3

Too many images
This article, like New York City and New York (state), has serious issues with too many images. The "Boroughscapes" section in particular is a gallery and needs to go. My tagging it as such however was reverted by who wrote in their edit summary that the article "is entitled to its picturescapes" and they have "been up for a long time". WP:CONTENTAGE is never a reason for keeping content and no Wikipedia article is "entitled" to violate the manual of style. Besides the Boroughscapes section, galleries in "20th century", "Neighborhood", "Parkland", and "Culture and contemporary life" are all excessive and need to be removed. Thanks!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I also stared a talk at Talk:Queens because of being reverted. This as a GA article and should comply with our protocols on accessibility WP:GALLERY-WP:UNDUE- MOS:ACCIM -WP:SANDWICH. I guess we'll have to start a talk on every New York related page that has this problem.--Moxy (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What you don't understand is that these articles have evolved out of consensus. Are you saying that a bevy of other editors cannot make a decision in unison? The Manhattan page was also made a GA under these conditions. Castncoot (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK let's do a reassessment as seen in pass verions and the talks above and looking over the article there's more problems then just image selection and accessibility of text. So let's see if we can fix this up by getting a few others involved. I see no rebuttal to follow the MoS by anyone  just the wish to keep the status quo despite all the concerns raised here and pass reviews. let's clean up some sourcing...some phrasing. some images... chartspam... undo sections. Let's make the article accessible for all readers... convert portals into mobile view versions excetera.--Moxy (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The article looked very different in May 2007 when it was promoted to GA, and that it has too many images was indeed raised at the GAR last year. Denying there's an issue and removing cleanup banners is not the way to address these long term issues. I understand completely how it gets to be this way. I understand these are highly photographed locations, which leads to lots of options when placing photos. As I said in our Talk:New York (state) discussion, the solution is not to try to include them all.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 19:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The consensus last year was that the number of images was appropriate, and the GA status was maintained. Castncoot (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it was mentioned that there was to many.... they have been stable for 9 months thus why no real point of contention. But let's be honest GA review wasn't done very well... their sources missing all over.. accessibility wasn't considered in the last review etc. Man up and try to help out?--Moxy (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Man up"? That was a highly inappropriate and gender-prejudicial comment; censure should be considered for that comment. Castncoot (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a comment that since you revert attempts at making  articles accessible to everyone....including our disabled readers. ..that perhaps YOUFIXIT.  I'm assuming your intent is not to make articles difficult to read....so how can we move forward with complying with our Mos versus what you believe is consensus to ignore  accessibility concerns? At Queens I have posted some images so you can see what many others see....can you fix the sandwich text here and there.....then we can discuss the gallaries? WP:GALLERY... WP:UNDUE....MOS:ACCIM...WP:SANDWICH. As you can see the consensus to ignore accessibility concerns has changed.  In the meantime I'm going to start adding sources...... I'm hoping this won't be reverted. --Moxy (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment was highly inappropriate, don't deflect. That being said, what newly changed consensus are you referring to? None has yet evolved here, per WP:CONSENSUS guideline. Castncoot (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Deflect?? You still have not provided one policy or guideline based reason why we shouldn't follow our protocols a multiple pages. Also still not sure what consensus you're referring to (can you link a talk)....but any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that ignores our are protocols.... especially those related to accessibility is pretty much invalid. So again .... do you have any reason to ignore our protocols in this case? Canvas anyone you like...get other opinions on why we should not follow our protocols here.--Moxy (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's definitley keep the discussion on topic. If someone leaves a comment you find inappropriate, best just to ignore, let them look silly, and focus on the article. I do think Castncoot, you may be consfusing stability for consensus. Just because a section goes unchanged or unchallenged for a length of time, doesn't mean its perfect by default. If you want to say that there's no consensus for change, you have to also realize there's no consensus for status quo. That's a double edged sword. It does however seem when we've brought this up, other editors have broadly agreed that the image use is excessive.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 00:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Definitely too many images. Images should be contextualized by the text and we have many images in this article that are not (A.T. Steward, for instance). Some pruning is probably a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 04:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All instances of sandwiching need to be fixed. Superfluous images include the location map in the infobox where NY County is impossible to see; it could possible be replace by File:New York City location Manhattan.svg further down, killing 2 crows with 1 stone. 2 images in the gallery in "Boroughscapes", File:Manhattan Skyline night.jpg and File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 3.jpg, are pretty but add nothing to the article. All gallery pictures in "Parkland" are unrelated to the section and are of better use in the building they depict. A similar argument applies to File:Lower Manhattan viewed from Brooklyn.jpg which is pretty but not a good impression of the financial district. The Stuyvesant School, the Butler Library and the interior of the Elmer Holmes Bobst Library are of no particular significance to Manhattan. A model on a catwalk depicts nothing of Manhattan. There are many more appropriate pictures to illustrate "Crime and public safety" than a NYPD boat with the Statue of Liberty barely visible in the background. 2 images of apartments/townhouses are unnecessary. That's my starting contribution for a suggested cull. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good (interior of Bobst, really, who thought that was a good idea!). Add the A.T. Stewart image, keep only one of either the townhouses or the tribeca loft exteriors (I'd dump the loft exteriors), there must be a better image of the interior of grand central, perhaps we replace Manhattan Municipal Building with an image of city hall, the jagged exterior of buildings image, the image of MacDougal Street (if it has to be macdougal then at least show an iconic place like cafe wha instead). We should probably run an image RfC to see what images to include in the article so that we get a broad consensus. --regentspark (comment) 11:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So at this point we should move forward with image cleanup? As on now we have some problems related to the MOS as outlined  above  with no policy based reason for inclusion. Lets try bring this back up to GA standers for accessibility. -- Moxy 🍁 21:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You know I agree here. The way images are overused makes the article harder to read, particularly when the images are unrelated to the prose, which should be the priority on this encyclopedia. Galleries are still in "20th century" and "Neighborhoods", and huge pileup of poor quality tourist photos (i.e. Staten Island ferry, MSG, and Manhattenhenge) all over the place. I've stated by tagging the 's favorite "Boroughscapes" section as a clear gallery that serves zero purpose currently, and by removing the gallery of skyscrapers that had no place being in a section on Parkland.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 01:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Personhattan" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Personhattan. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh  18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Landmarks and architecture section
Even a bulleted list would be better than it looks now... We can see the names of the landmarks one after another in the paragraph without any description, it does not look good. Can someone make it right? Kapeter77 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I disagree that "it does not look good" because that is your personal opinion. I agree it may be better formatted as a list, but the list needs an introductory sentence before it, such as "This is a list of landmarks in Manhattan". However, the way you formatted it, you kept the punctuation in, as though it were a single sentence (which it is not). This results in list entries reading
 * Museum Mile on Fifth Avenue, the
 * New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street,
 * And somehow, Port Authority Bus Terminal was placed on two lines.
 * The sentence after this list is a run-on: Also gateways to numerous iconic river-crossing bridges, and an emerging number of supertall skyscrapers, are all located on densely populated Manhattan Island; the Statue of Liberty rests on a pedestal on Liberty Island, an exclave of Manhattan. These issues should be discussed before we re-add this list. epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reorganized it, let's see how that works. epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * epicgenius How did you do that? :-) Kapeter77 (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the templates div col and div col end. By the way has tagged the section with the prose cleanup banner now, so I am guessing they disagree with this format. epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Definitely clearer than the earlier version. Hopefully Moxy will explain why they prefer the prose one. --regentspark (comment) 14:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn’t The Dakota be in the list as well? (Architecture, Celebrities living in it, important role in film etc.)--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we have semi-protection?
I'd like to say that the article about Manhattan needs semi-protection, due to the fact that it has over 100,000 views, and later in the future, some people may vandalize it and might actually delete the entire page and only leave the name of it. Interesting536 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not pre-emptively protect articles in case they might get vandalised. There are plenty of people watching this article, nothing about the editing history on it suggests it needs any protection. Canterbury Tail talk 16:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ok, thanks for responding, i didnt realize that 638 people were looking at it anyway

Yang image
I'm removing this because the timing, coming as it is before the Mayoral primary, is suspect. I suggest getting consensus before re-adding it. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If a tech entreprenuer image is necessary, Dwight Merriman is a possibility.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yang is a household name and therefore more notably appropriate, but I have no objection to Dwight Merriman for now. Castncoot (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"1st borough" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1st borough. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (+) 13:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

"First borough" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect First borough. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (+) 13:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Help With Some Linking
When I tried editing the article a short while ago, I tried to link the 1844 United States presidential election in New York article so that it would match up with the other elections on the table so it wouldn't simply be linked to the main 1844 United States presidential election. However, when I tried linking up that article, I ended up deleting the table by mistake and I had to undo my edit. Could I please have some help with actually linking the article without it deleting the table? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Politics
Information about presidential election results cites returns from the 2004 election, presumably to offer a contemporary snapshot. It is now nearing 2022; could somebody please update these references with statistics from the 2020 election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AQuandary (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
Why does the infobox incorrectly assert that Manhattan is "New York City, New York"? Manhattan is a part of New York City that is coextensive with New York County, thus the parameter should have the name of the county as with the other boroughs. I was unable to change this outright, as someone added a note to discuss first. --IWI (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

MANHATTAN IS NOT THE SAME AS NEW YORK COUNTY
The article contains a glaring error. Manhattan is NOT coextensive with New York County ever since the Hsarlem River Aculsion sepaated the Mable Hull Distyrict from the island of Manhattan., Marble Huill is on the mainland of the United States and often thought of as being part of Bronxc Cunty but it is not. Avulsions do not change the boundaries of thge teioieshet adjhoun, and Marble Hill is part of Neww York Cojnty even though it is not on Manhattan Island. 2603:7000:1301:ED88:E95D:D6CF:A278:6635 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, per § 2-202 of the New York City Administrative Code: . See also this discussion and this discussion. -- Kinu t/c 07:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Talk:New York City
I started a topic at Talk:New_York_City regarding which sources should and shouldn't be used in the New York City article. Lots of the same sources are used here, so interested editors should look at the discussion there. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Interactive Map Image Looks Bad
It's better once enlarged, but the thumbnail image of the interactive map looks like it was drawn by a child. Can the outline size be reduced in the thumbnail? Or could we just have a normal good image here? BlazeFielding (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The line width? It may have also changed since you commented. ɱ  (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Still looks pretty bad to me. The red outline thickness is the same regardless of zoom level, so it looks like crayon or marker in the thumbnail image?
 * Maybe it's just my browser, I'm on Microsoft Edge. BlazeFielding (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong name on the interactive map
For some reason the interactive map has the wrong name for Manhattan, "Menhetn", which I believe is only used on the Latin Serbian Wikipedia. You can't see this in this article unless you open the map and zoom in, but it is visible in e.g. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Reservoir. I checked OpenStreetMap and they have the correct English name for Manhattan, so for some reason this one name is loaded wrong. I don't know how this could be fixed or where it is appropriate to write about it, I decided to try doing it here. VOT Enjoyer (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * Wasn't even aware of this discussion until right now. The status quo version is clearly better. Version B looks awful, as not only is it cutting out important details, but it looks crammed like a fifth-grader's editing. Castncoot (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * At 300 kB, this whole article is already far too long; for example, it would take over an hour to read through and greatly exceeds WP:Article length's recommended maximum of 100 to 120 kB.
 * Some material should be summarized and perhaps spun off on to a sub-article (although for many subjects, it would be better to direct readers to the relevant section of an already existing subject article for New York City).
 * As for the lead itself, even Version B is far too long. The Met Gala may belong in discussions in the main text about the Museum, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. The lead includes two satellites of Cornell; however it doesn't (although it should) include the far-more-important Cooper Union.
 * And so on and so forth.
 * —— Shakescene (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * What other specific details do you feel should be trimmed from version B? What specific important details do you feel are missing from Version B?


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


 * To achieve a length of 120 kb seems ridiculous in addition to being impossible. You do know there are articles with up to 10 times that length on Wikipedia, right? The whole WP:Article length guideline is arbitrary and outdated itself. I also don't mind trimming irrelevancies out of an article, but I am opposed to trimming just for the sake of trimming. Nobody needs to read the whole length of this or any article from top to bottom, I never do so with any article. That's why we have sections, including a lede. The average person spends a few minutes reading snippets from an article. But then those snippets need to provide the information being sought. Manhattan is a sub-article of New York City, so naturally there will be more in-depth content in this article. Many people find these details useful to know, even if you may not. Manhattan is also complex enough to warrant 300kb or even 400kb. Castncoot (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just an interesting observation that occurred to me, given the comment above by Nikkimaria, "Shakescene, previous efforts to spin off materials have met with some resistance ", why was the editor who was offering resistance not pinged for comment? Castncoot (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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


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


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

I've gone ahead and implemented version C of the lead section per the above discussion, since there's a pretty clear consensus to do so. 23.150.152.38 (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead of Version A is way too long. Some1 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Version C: Agree with and  that Version A is too long. Version C is a lot more succinct. Version A contains a lot of unnecessary fluff ("The City", the $5000 rents, etc.) and the interlacing of the history (the Lenape para) between the descriptions (the Situated/Anchored and the "smallest county" paras) is not ideal. Most of the material in these three paragraphs can be combined anyway. Version C can do with some trimming as well (for example, the reference to Marble Hill will be lost on most people) but it is definitely in the right direction.RegentsPark (comment) 23:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Version C ..... but this could also use some more cuddling. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Version C. An intro is supposed to be as short as possible. Per WP:LEDE, the average reader may only spend a couple minutes on an article. An intro that takes several minutes to read is actively counterproductive, as a reader is less likely to reach deeper into the body where the real info, complete with context, resides. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Version A, as stated before and stated here, is wayyyy too long, and contains a lot more trivial material. I back Version C, and while I appreciate Version A's effort, I believe that more of it belongs in the body. My main concern with Version A's length has to be in its history (similar to an ongoing discussion on Talk:France regarding its lead), and that it names too much of the landmarks, of which there are TONS. I would direct such editor to consider working on Tourism in New York City, and maybe even writing an article dedicated to Tourism in Manhattan if it can be successfully done with editor consensus.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Version C (saw Wikiproject Cities notice). Some of the wording remains odd (based in a timezone?), but the newer version is more compact and seems to group themes a bit more. CMD (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Version C is fine, with the understanding that this pertains specifically to the lede and that removed info may still belong in the body of the article. Castncoot (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


 * I did not opine because I misread the comment, believing that had considered the edit and liked it., I think your edit is clearly superior to the existing text. It addresses the  tag objections. I also think that waiting two week for comment was perfectly reasonable. In fact, since it appears that only WP:BOLDing got any response at all, it was clearly the right approach. , both your revert summary and your post are unfairly harsh. Not one single person objected in two weeks, including you, which is a pretty clear indication that the community thinks it's a good idea or, at worst, are neutral. Nikkimaria, I am afraid that the RfC route might be required. That is, if you are still interested in helping improve this article? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed version for reasons that are similar to those of Last1in. RegentsPark (comment) 20:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting your timelines and impression from, Last1in, just as you had apparently misread Alansohn's note. Many people edit Wikipedia once a week, others much more frequently. Not everyone is coming across this Talk page all the time to know that there's a (self-) discussion taking place. There is a significant cadre of editors here with actual topic experience of the subject of the article who believe that the pertinent details already reliably sourced are just that – pertinent and reliably sourced. What more can you ask for? Castncoot (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors with "actual topic experience" are welcome to contribute their views to discussions, but they don't have veto power; just because they believe certain details are "pertinent" does not mean that those details must be included, if there is not consensus for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "What more can you ask for?" • If the question is about the substance of the change as opposed to the original, I'd say editors could ask for a summary that meets WP:PROPERSPLIT point 6. • If you're asking about the process, I'd say that an editor who asks for comment on a proposed change get input if people object. If input is not forthcoming (and I think two weeks is more than ample opportunity), I think that editor should expect little drama when they make the proposed change. My only critique of the process followed here is that I tend to put a statement like, "I'll make the change on {date} if there is no consensus against it." • If you are asking about the response to the change that Nikkimaria got in this instance, I'd say that they probably expected every other editor to WP:AGF and respond with WP:RESPECT (a good aid to that is WP:WALKIES). That can be especially difficult when you've worked on an article for a long time, but that very closeness can be a trap. It can be hard to see flaws, especially WP:SS issues, in one's own work. It's why authors praise their editors in discussions of every great novel. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think enough editors have notice now. An ongoing discussion here would be more constructive and is looking to be like a pseudo-RfC anyway. Let's give some more time on comment period here, say another week or ten days. This could also just go to RfC now anyway, though I suppose it would be an ambiguous form of an RfC because it leaves doubt as to which parts of the changed info are important to include, as it certainly is not going to stay an all-or-none package permanently anyway. Just for the record, I'm not opposed to making the article more efficient. I just don't want to throw out WP:NOTABLE details, and that's where topic experience helps (certainly not as veto power), because it tells a more authentic story to those, and than those, who don't have topic experience. Castncoot (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Take a look at this. This was already vetted and discussed by people 10 years ago. What makes you think that you know more than those people? That is the height of arrogance. Do you know that an Australian tourist just killed an elderly couple in the US by driving on the wrong side of the road a few days ago? You've already done significant damage to this article, and I'm going to start restoring important material from back then which you've recklessly and cluelessly deleted. I'll tell you right now that I don't storm into locational articles about which I know little about topic-wise and start deleting thousands of their bytes that others who know that location much better have obviously taken great care to edit and source properly. If you really want to help improve this article, then I think the best way you could do so would be to modify a few words here and there, or perhaps to stay off it entirely. Castncoot (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , I understand that you think you are protecting this article, but 's edits are not vandalism. They are a strong effort to improve the article, make it more concise, and address problems that reduce the value of the article to readers. They came to the Talk page before making good-faith improvements in order to build concensus, and they deserve both respect and cooperation for their efforts. They have gotten neither. Attacking them is not a solution, and does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Statements like What makes you think that you know more than those people? That is the height of arrogance, and recklessly and cluelessly deleted are hurtful, unhelpful and untrue. Please consider striking them and apologising. There is also some excellent advice over at WP:WALKIES and WP:COOL, articles I turn to frequently in my own editing and strongly recomend. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with you. U.S. municipality articles are structured de facto to be longer and more detailed and more complex than those from other countries. My only intent is prevent wholesale destruction of the article by people who don't understand this. Castncoot (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please add wholesale destruction of the article to the list of things that are unhelpful and deliberately hurtful. Please desist. Such comments are disruptive and absolutely not within the spirit of WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. Also, I respectfully suggest a review of WP:OWN. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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