Talk:Worth Square

Notability
Worth Square is notable while small. It contains the second oldest monument in the city and is one of only two monuments that are also a place of burial in the city. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation considers it a separate park. So while it is good to be referenced from the Madison Square article, I believe it requires a separate article. Please discuss here if you disagree. Doc &#9836; talk 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I very much disagree. I live just blocks from there and pass through "Worth Square" almost daily. It's not a park, it's not a square, it's a traffic island with a monument on it.  Not a single person in Manhattan has every heard of "Worth Square", or would easily recognize what you were referring to if you told them where it was.  There's no greenery, no benches, no trees, no flowers, no nothin'.  There is, in fact, no "there" there except asphalt, sidewalks, and the monument.  It's bad enough that people hear "Madison Square" and think "Madison Square Garden" and wonder where it is (which is one reason that using "Madison Square" as the name of the neighborhood has fallen out of fashion) without dividing the square up into two pieces.  "Worth Square" certainly lack notability and is totally unworthy of a separate article.  The Parks Department has all kinds of reasons to say this and that, and I do not at all doubt that they say exactly what you're saying they said, but I'm talking reality here, and there is no such thing as "Worth Square" except in some bureaucrats binder.  I'm reverting, sorry.  I have, however, transferred just about everything to the Madison Square article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As they say in the legal profession, please let me rephrase. I sounded like a madman, the result of about 8 hours rewriting the Madison Square article when I should be sleeping.  That's no excuse for rudeness, though, so please allow me to apologize, not for the facts of what I said, which are true, but for the terrible tone I used in saying them. I do disagree that Worth Square is notable enough for a seperate article, for the reasons stated above: it really barely exists as a place, whatever the Park Department says about it.  I've lived in this location since the early 80s (I'm on 22nd just off the Flatiron Building), and it must have been a couple of years before I even noticed that there was something of interest on that traffic island. The renovation of Madison Square Park didn't carry over to the Worth monument, and the re-structuring of the Square for improved traffic flow (to cut down the number of car v. pedestrian accidents there) left it even more isolated than before. I'd also point out the example of Herald Square, which is the uptown part of that square, while the downtown triangle is, officially, "Greeley Square" -- but people call the whole thing Herald Square, and there's no "Greeley Square" article because of it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  13:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought of this -- let me set up "Worth Square" as a separate section of the Madison Square article, so that the redirect can do right there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  13:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done that. The wording of the new section is rather awkward and could use some polishing, but that's a little beyond me at the moment -- I'll tackle it a little later.  Again, my apologies for my rudeness above. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  13:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your rewording, to again before discussion took place, just change it back to your view, is not in the spirit of working together. While the section you have created is much better and will be perhaps viewed by more people, Worth Square, as it is named on the fence, is not part of Madison Square. It hurts nothing to have a separate article and as long as it is cross referenced it seems to me that serves your purpose. I too have lived in the area since the mid 1960s so am equally familiar with the area. Doc &#9836; talk 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)