Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:56, 4 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manhattan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Manhattan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 22, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 3, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 18, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 30, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2020-04-15 copyedit Get FA status fixing what was addressed in the FAC

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manhattan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

More Infobox?

It'd be nice if the island's characteristics were included in the info box like larger pieces of geography. One question I don't have answered, is what's the tallest point/highest natural elevation on Manhattan Island? ie: is global warming going to take out the *whole* island, or just most of it?
~ender 2010-04-12 21:50:PM MST

What is the size of the whole island (and not just the borough)? The map of the whole island, etc. are also missing. 88.192.19.110 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

East, Hudson and Harlem rivers

I attempted to correct this phrase by changing "Rivers" to "rivers," since the three rivers exist independently of one another and so their names do not apply to the rivers collectively. Apparently an automatic program reverted this change, and I have no idea how to complain about it, except here. My correction was absolutely proper. Rontrigger (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

population

should we include that the population of manhattan (1,626,159) is approximately 12% of new york state's total population (19,651,127)? i think that could be useful information. let me know. GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And Queens and Brooklyn's populations are about 16% of NY's population apiece. This borders on WP:TRIVIA. My opinion is that the fact should not be included. Epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with it; I do agree that it could be useful, to give the reader an idea what percentage of the State's demographic statistics (such as per capita income or its ethnic composition) is being influenced by the borough. Epic, you could also consider doing the same for Queens and Brooklyn (although Brooklyn is larger than Queens, hence both cannot be 16%). Castncoot (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Castncoot: I miscalculated, my apologies. 12% for Brooklyn, 11% for Queens. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

12% for Manhattan, that's not correct, GoGatorMeds - it's 8.3% of the State's population and 19.3% of the City's population as of July 2013. Stated and cited in article. Thanks for calculating Queens' and Brooklyn's data points, Epic. We'd need the data points per percentages of the city's 2013 population as well. If you believe they would go well in those respective articles, that would be great, or I can put them in when I get a chance. Castncoot (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Silicon Alley industries

Industry insider websites and various citation sources have indicated that Silicon Alley, centered in Manhattan, has evolved into high tech industries focusing on the Internet, new media, telecommunications, digital media, software development, game design, and other fields within information technology. There may be other high tech industries, but currently they are not considered part of Silicon Alley. Biotechnology is completely separate from Silicon Alley.

• New York Times "Alive and Well in Silicon Alley", March 12, 2006
• Silicon Alley Insider
• SiliconAlley.com

National Venture Capital Association provides statistics about venture capital investments in the NY metropolitan area. Its cited sources (Industry Stats By Date: Venture Capital Investments Q2 2014 – MoneyTree Results (Regional Data)) do NOT distinguish which industries, including Silicon Alley, receive these investments in the NY metropolitan area.

While centered mostly in Lower Manhattan, Silicon Alley is also in other parts of Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn (Widening Tech 'Alley' Outgrows Its Name: Label Is Giving Way to References to Submarkets like Chelsea, Flatiron/Madison Square)

If anyone has suitable sources to update this information, please provide it.67.84.204.32 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I did source it and you reverted it, which I'm about to fix. You're a tough customer, but I also believe you're exhibiting some bad faith here. First of all, "Silicon Alley" in the New York Area is exactly analogous to "Silicon Valley" in the San Francisco Bay Area. There is no difference whatsoever between the two vis-a-vis definition or applicability, other than the U.S. coast in question. Are you saying that Silicon Valley somehow does not encompass biotechnological startups or enterprises? That's silly, there are many. Tech is tech, and for you to somehow remove biotech from that sphere is artificial. To say that the biotechnology industry is part of the pharmaceutical industry is also frivolous! - you obviously are unaware that the established Big Pharma industry is actually at odds with its biotech counterparts in terms of patenting, etc. The venture capital investment citation by the NVCA for Silicon Valley on its website is a legitimate citation, so why would the same not hold true for Silicon Alley? Furthermore, the NVCA citation includes the city of San Francisco as part of Silicon Valley's total, which actually represents a wide swath of Northern California's Bay Area. Silicon Alley represents an entrepreneurial sphere and a state of mind more than a place per se. Nomenclatures expand and evolve over time. But most pertinently here, the decidedly reliable Business Insider citation which I quoted clearly and unequivocally equates (multiple times) Silicon Alley definitively with New York's tech ecosystem, period. This means that any quotable technology company, whether biotech, internet tech, or other tech, is fair game to be mentioned as a part of the metonym known as Silicon Alley, just as Wall Street is a metonym for a variety of corporate and financial interests, and not just the securities industry. Finally, for whatever bizarre reason, you seem intent on withholding legitimate and informatively valuable venture capital investment numbers in the Silicon Alley/New York area ecosystem, and this is absolutely unacceptable. For the above reasons, I am reverting your edit, and now the ball is in your court to prove (which you cannot) why biotechnology would artificially be categorized separately from all other technological industries. Castncoot (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no bad faith on my part as I have requested Castncoot to address their proposed updates in Talk prior to making further edits about this topic since Castncoot continually rejects my updates, which are supported by cited sources. I try to update or modify relevant details by Castncoot based on cited sources, when applicable.

Castncoot finally added a citation that better reflects on the make-up of the different types of Silicon Alley companies. I updated the article based on this citation. It makes no reference to biotechnology companies.

Castncoot reversed everything in my latest update, including a legitimate citation source, correction to a url, and proper copy editing, and then tries to partially justify it in this Talk, even though I have repeatedly requested that Castncoot justify everything proposed first, allow me to respond, and then modify later based on mutual agreement. If needed, a scalpel is better than a hatchet.

Misplaced Pages articles are not about what authors think must be correct based on their extrapolation of published information. It is about what published sources provide about the topic. Using transitive logic to try and equate two different industries on the West Coast and East Coast seems to be Original Research without any published sources. There is not a single biotechnology company listed in the Top 100 Silicon Alley companies from the cited source.

Feel free to add biotechnology in the general Economy section of this article based on cited sources. Include it as part of Silicon Alley if it is cited. Pharmaceutical companies own many biotechnology companies so that they are intertwined.

The NVCA citation provides a separate entry for Silicon Valley. It does not provide a separate entry for Silicon Alley. The make-up of Silicon Ally industries/companies is different from Silicon Valley. To infer that Silicon Alley encompasses all of the NY Metro area investments is Original Research.67.84.204.32 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now included the total amount for venture capital investment for various industries, which also includes Silicon Alley, in the NY City metro area for first half of 2014 as per the cited source.67.84.204.32 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your reporting of the timeline here is not accurate. The reason that I deleted the source you provided is that it requires registration to access the full reference, which not everybody can readily do. Therefore, I for one am still unable to access its content. What I do see of most pertinent interest is the title, "Widening Tech 'Alley' Outgrows Its Name," which actually supports my point and not yours. In the meantime, I'm willing to meet you in the middle here and go along with your latest edit. I've also added an entirely separate statement and citations about biotechnology as you suggested, although I still maintain (and the new sources support) that biotechnology is a part and parcel of technology and not an extrapolation. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How long will the nice new "fuller" shots of Manhattan stand?

This article, NYC, and all its borough articles have a long history of users scrubbing any images that seem to capture the fullness and denseness of NYC such as these:

<----

So enjoy them while you can.. because wikipedians are persistent about deleting larger fuller scope images of NYC and confining it only to smaller scope photos such as this:

--->

--108.50.170.32 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo feedback requested

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Actually, WPP, no, I will not refrain from participating in a discussion that any editor can take part in. Besides, if I didn;t comment, no one would know that photo #1 was the lede image until you replaced it with photo #2, which is your photograph. I reverted that, on the grounds that your photograph did not adequately represent Manhattan in a way that was appropriate for a lede image, and that, therefore, the original image was superior. BMK (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'm "biased", but one of the images is yours, and the other isn't mine. Hmmm... BMK (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes you have already made it clear that you do not like my photos by your actions as well as your words. Please let others chime in and try not to dominate everything. Thanks talk→ WPPilot  08:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors here are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions, regardless of what has gone on previously in the discussion. BMK (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You just have a inert need to tell them that I took one of the photos first, so that helps them make up there mind, is that correct?talk→ WPPilot  08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I think that you should have told people in order to be perfectly transparent about everything. You say something like:

"There's a dispute about which of these two images is best for the article. Editor X prefers photo 1, which was the lede image until I replaced it with photo 2, which happens to be one of my own. Regardless of that, I think photo 2 is superior for reason 1, reason 2 and reason 3, while photo 1 is not as good for reason 4, reason 5 and reason 6. Please comment on which image you think is better for the article."

That puts all the cards on the table and allows people to comment knowing precisely what the situation is, instead of denying them the fact that you have a conflict of interest in regard to one of the images. BMK (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of getting a lecture, what's wrong with the picture used when the article attained GA status? --NeilN 08:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that image at all. BMK (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Then use it, BMK is a cyber bully that MUST get his way no matter what, I am tired of dealing with the jerk. talk→ WPPilot  08:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is herein deemed the leader of the Misplaced Pages world, all hail the grand pubaha...

File:George Schlegel - George Degen - New York 1873.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:George Schlegel - George Degen - New York 1873.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 15, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-12-15. 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) 00:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class New York (state) articles
• High-importance New York (state) articles
• GA-Class New York City articles
• Top-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• GA-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• GA-Class Islands articles
• WikiProject Islands articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment