Talk:Meatpacking District, Manhattan

Dubious Image use
What does this image bring to this article?MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it shows that people actually live and go out in this city. Because it shows nightlife, at what is a very well-known establishment.  Because not every photo has to be outdoors of a monument or a building, but can actually show the life that happens in the city.  -- David  Shankbone  16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relevance to the article title? WP is an encyclopoedia, not a photo album. MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really?! It's not a photo album?!  Nobody told me.  Relevance is Hogs & Heifers is a well-known establishment in the Meatpacking District.  -- David  Shankbone  16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (repeating discussion elsehwere) The establishment has no article. Why is it notable? Why is this photo a defining aspect of this article, which is about a district, not a bar. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't rely upon WIkipedia to tell you everything; there are more than two million notable things in this world. Use your Google for such basic questions instead of taking a "Prove it worthy to me" tone.  I've already explained to you the reasoning, here and elsewhere.  If you don't care for the photo, then move on as we are at a standstill.  Or raise an RFC to create consensus if it is worth your time and effort, here and Lower Manhattan. -- David  Shankbone  17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I rely on WP to inform me of notable topics, not random unrelated photos. MickMacNee (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool - of course, we rely upon consensus, and not solely what you think. Since you have never touched this article, nor Lower Manhattan, whereas I have, and I live in New York City, and since you seem to have come to this article via Table dance and for some reason think this photo belongs nowhere, I don't think you are raising particularly persuasive arguments.  You rely upon Argument from ignorance to argue against a photo in a local neighborhood bar and grill that is well-known.  Huh? -- David  Shankbone  18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow - I need to actually live in the neighbourhood before judging if an image is worthy of inclusion in an article about a neighbourhood? What absolute crap. MickMacNee (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I said at all; I'm sorry you did not grasp my point. -- David  Shankbone  18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your implication is quite clear, I don't live there and therefore have no right to edit the article, a clear breach of WP:OWN. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that the point was Mick MacNee has no interest in the article save for a picture he doesn't seem to approve of. Mstuczynski (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How does that preclude me from making an edit to the article? MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't preclude you from doing anything. It just makes it very likely that your edits will not attract support and will be reverted, that's all.—DCGeist (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. If people want to revert, all they have to do is give a good reason that stands up to encyclopoedic scrutiny, nothing more, nothing less. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see DCGeist already answered for me. I simply thought the point was not understood. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with MickMacNee (that rhymes). This photo brings nothing to this article. The bar Hogs and Heifers does not appear in the first two travel guides which appear under a Google search for Meatpacking District: and. Coincidentally, one of these sources is used to reference the text. The photo itself seems to center on a cash register with a light above it; the other objects in the picture seem rather tangential -- the photo is of poor substance and composition. Per this rationale I remove it forthwith and I encourage others to do the same if it is restored, citing this rationale.--72.76.1.199 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The person above probably needs no introduction, but is the IP editor who has trolled me across at least 20 articles or talk pages in the last few several weeks. We should all welcome him/her to the discussion; his/her IP changes frequently by the last few digits.  Anyway, I'm on vacation.  If the photo is removed, so be it.  -- David  Shankbone  22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you at least appreciate I am not an IP warrior, and treat my comments accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in looking over your contributions and your User page, you are worlds apart from the personality type of the person behind this IP. -- David  Shankbone  23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An article that describes an area with an active night life doesn't benefit from a depiction of the night life? Picture quality aside, the photograph helps to give a sense of what is going on in the neighborhood. If reference to Hogs and Heifers is deleted from the caption the bar's notability or non-notability becomes a non-issue. To avoid an editing war I will wait for further comments, but I would suggest that the image be reinstated. Mstuczynski (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is generally a problem the New York articles suffer from - they all become memorials to shots of the twin towers, or skyskraper shots up the wazoo. What I did with Lower Manhattan (and if you look at the history and what it look like before, you'll see what I mean), it was depressing.  There is so much life in these avenues and streets.  Manhattan is not just a place where people work in skyskrapers, and New YOrk is not just Manhattan.  The problem is, people who don't live here and have their own notions of what NYC is like, or should look like, make edits.  Whereas New Yorkers want to say: Look!  There's life here!  We live, and play in these neighborhoods.  I thought the photo was a nice demonstration of an old aspect of the Meatpacking District, since what used to make the place edgy are disappearing, this place is a remnant.  Sometimes it is difficult to source these things, but if you live in the city you know it.  That's all.  And although the focus is on the register, there's so much going on around it - so many different stories.  True, though, it was taken before I worked with my SLR, which is all my recent work. But it hardly seems "no photo" is better than this photo?  Whatever.  I'll live either way.  -- David  Shankbone  23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[


 * Exactly. The photo won't win any awards, but it does illustrate a vital aspect of the neighborhood that is the article topic. If someone comes up with an aesthetically superior image that serves an equally illustrative purpose, of course it can be substituted for (or supplemented alongside) the present image. For the moment, however, our encyclopedia better serves its informative purpose with the image than it would without it.—DCGeist (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is addressed to the anon IP user who continues to disrupt this article despite a clear concensus against his point of view. First of all, I would like to compliment you on your obvious familiarity with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Have you considered opening an account? An account helps the community keep track of an editor's contributions and eases the lines of communication when there is a disagreement as to the content of a page. For instance, as your IP address keeps shifting throughout Newark, New Jersey, I am forced to leave you a note here. "Poor composition" and your failure to recognise the obvious connection between a photograph of people enjoying a nightclub atmosphere and an article that specifically mentions the importance of nightclubs to the neighborhood does not make for cogent arguement against the inclusion of this picture. The relevence is sufficient for multiple editors (with accounts and accountability mind you), to continue to restore this article to standards we all find appropriate. It is unfortunate that you have chosen this course of action. For clarity's sake, we deny that your reasoning for deletion is logical. However, if you have any reasonable way of refuting our collective arguements on this matter, that is not based on your inability to see a relevence evident to others, we look forward to your communications. Until that time, I would ask you to refrain from changing this article unless you are able to find a concensus for said change. Wikipedia is, after all, built on concensus and cooperation, not unilateral decisions. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a wholesale response to multiple comments above, and I apologize if I've missed some of the responses, but I think the following needs pointing out:
 * The Meatpacking District is, first and foremost, a place. The nightlife and the culture, And as such, the top photo should ideally be a picture that shows what the place looks like, as opposed to "what it's like at night" or "what people do around these parts for fun".
 * Wikipedia is not mere collections of photographs or media files - now, WP:NOT is more a safeguard against turning articles into photo galleries, but I think it applies to an extent here - a photo doesn't belong here simply because it happens to be taken in the neighborhood. It should be an image of encyclopedic value. You might not agree with the IP editor's tone or argument, but the discussion itself is valid.
 * I'm not comfortable with using images as a reaction to other articles, or to use the image as a (excuse me for my choice of words here) proof, i.e., "this image is important because despite what the haters say, the MPD is teh awesome". To me, Meatpacking District is defined by velvet ropes and B&T crowds in striped shirts, but that doesn't mean that is going to be my choice for the picture that appears at the top.
 * This is all to say, I don't think the current image is necessarily bad - I just don't think it works as a representative image of what is, before all else, a location. Anyway, I've uploaded a few images from the neighborhood I found on Flickr to Commons, so do whatever you will with those (I've added a commonscat link in the external links section). --Mosmof (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Add away. Nobody seems to think the article, or the picture is perfect and I am never opposed to expansion. I do try to conform with WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The mediocre picture--which I personally like--can be replaced; nobody really argued against that. I think that everyone, myself included, simply didn't explore other options or the Commons for Meatpacking photos.  The issue became an issue because the same IP warrior--who carries the Newark 72.76.XX.XXX extension and edit wars on a variety of pages dealing with my material, and who likes to pretend to be a whole network of people who leave the exact same messages and have the exact same agenda--was edit-warring over it.  Take it off and replace it with a better photo.  But remember:  Locations are not just buildings, trees, etc.  A neighborhood, as New Yorker Jane Jacobs would tell you, is more than bricks and mortar.  -- David  Shankbone  15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I think I came off more confrontational than I intended (and I also lost my train of thought, it looks like). Anyway, yeah, I was a little confused by the tone of the discussion, but it makes a little more sense now. --Mosmof (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of a cash register in this article?
There's a photo in this article which shows a cash register illuminated by a lamp, behind a bar, with some peripheral objects including a headless figure in soiled jeans atop the bar. The headless figure could be a mannequin for all we know. Of what possible value is such a photo to an article on Meatpacking District, Manhattan?--72.76.97.191 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, repetion is the art of comedy. Please read the comments above. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is "repetion?"--72.76.97.191 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You got me, "repetition". Thanks for your interest in the article Mstuczynski (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No biggie. There's a lots of innuendo and invective above, little actual discussion of content, which is what this page is supposed to be for.  Let's talk content: why is a picture of a cash register in this article?--72.76.97.191 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it makes change you can believe in.—DCGeist (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead isn't there
The lead of this article is very weird. It's not even there in the respect that it doesn't make up a propper sentence since the independent clause has no predicate. The article could also use some basic info about the size of the area.Ramblersen (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC) contribs) 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed back to what it was in February, when someone apparently used the article as a sandbox. There may be fixes needed in the rest of the article, if anyone cares to check. Slugabed (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image
An editor has attemtped to restore the aerial view of the neighborhood to the infobox, however this image is really too detailed to be very effective at the small size imposed on it by being in an infobox, which is why I moved it elswhere in the article, where it could be displayed at a larger size. The image of a building which I replaced it with is emblematic of the activity that took place in the meatpacking district, i.e. meatpacking, because that's what it is, a meatpacking buolding, and that's what those buildings typically look like: single story buildings fronted with loading docks. Although there's a lot more that goes on in the area now that it's been gentrified, it's an appropriate image, and one which displays well at the infobox size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The editor again restored the aerial image to the infobox, without stopping by here to discuss it. He or she did post a message to my talk page.  Here it is, along with my response:


 * "I am restoring the aerial view of the Meatpacking District, because the current image you use is first of all not good to look at, and you might want to take a look at these articles here Williamsburg, Brooklyn or Washington Heights, Manhattan. Gryffindor (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Regarding the Meatpacking District, I am not sure why you say that the image in the infobox is not typical of the area, because it most assuredly is quite typical of the pre-gentrified buildings there – it is, after all, a meatpacking building. In any case, if you think it's not the best picture for the infobox, fine, find another one, but do not restore the aerial view to the infobox, because at that size it's completely undistinguishable and might as well be a visual gibberish. Readers should not be required to click through to the image's page in order to see what the image is, the image should be comprehensible as it is presented in the article. Again, this discussion needs to take place on the article talk page, and not here. Please retain the status quo as I have restored it until you have a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)"


 * Again, this discussion needs to take place here, and not on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've found another Commons image which I think works better than the previous one, and put it into the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Slaughterhouses
The article is not clear about what exactly became of the numerous slaughterhouses. Did they actually relocate? I don't imagine that 200 slaughterhouses would all close down since there was such a demand for meat back then. Perhaps this could be added to the article? ToriJana (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Colonial History
I accidentally hit save page instead of preview, thus major changes were made without an edit summary, I apologize. I put the summary in a subsequent small edit. "Respectfully submit significant additional content and research with detailed footnotes and sources."WindingRoad (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)WindingRoad

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meatpacking District, Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808092951/http://www1.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0252%2Cmcpherson%2C40756%2C15.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0252%2Cmcpherson%2C40756%2C15.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116152130/http://gawker.com/news/meatpacking-district/hit-piece-meatpacking-district-202992.php to http://gawker.com/news/meatpacking-district/hit-piece-meatpacking-district-202992.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Meatpacking District, Manhattan
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Meatpacking District, Manhattan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "citydata": From Morningside Heights, Manhattan: http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Morningside-Heights-New-York-NY.html From Greenwich Village:  From East Village, Manhattan: East Village (Alphabet City) neighborhood in New York, New York (NY), 10002, 10003, 10009, 10012 detailed profile, City-Data. Accessed 2015-03-07. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed unclear sentence from Preservation
I removed "By 2003, out of 250 20th-century slaughterhouses and packing plants in the area, only 35 remained." from the start of the Preservation section because its meaning was ambiguous, and the citied source didn't provide any clarification. If someone wants to re-add it, please clarify whether it is referring to slaughterhouse businesses or the buildings which had historically housed slaughterhouses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyJMcFlyJr (talk • contribs) 23:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Where did all the animals come from?/ How did they get to the slaughterhouses?
"By 1900 the area was home to 250 slaughterhouses":

Where did all those animals slaughtered there come from? Was there still so much cattle(/ pig/ poultry) farming in the direct neighbourhood? Or were big amounts of live animals transported there from farer away places (from where/ how far?) – if so, by which means (live animals on ships on the Hudson? or by train? – Were they then driven on foot, in herds, through the streets from the dock/ freight train station to the slaughterhouses? Or transported, alive, on ox/ horse drawn carriages or motor trucks?) I realise not all of this might belong in the district article, but part of it does and part should/ might be described elsewhere and this should be connected with a link to here... Can any of this information already be found on WP? --> Where? 2A02:3036:F:EBDB:1:1:FD7B:AC36 (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)