Jump to content

Talk:8th Street and St. Mark's Place

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

Club 57

[edit]

I added Club 57 a page I just started. I am not sure if it was located at 57 St. Marks or not. If so, it is probably out of order in the paragraph. (sorry) elizmr 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Smith

[edit]

There was a claim here that Patti Smith played the Five Spot. I'm pretty certain she never did, so I've removed pending citation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?

[edit]

Is it just me, or does this article seem like it needs desperate reconstruction? Tajik24 (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's overstating it, but it could use being sequenced differently. I'll take a shot. - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

real name

[edit]

i dont know a lot about this place but according to this article [1] its name is supposed to have an apostrophe. does anyone have a better source for one way or the other? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The street signs on St. Marks Place have no apostrophe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the street signs also have no period. did you read the article? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did I read the six-year old article in a free community newspaper? Yes I did, and what it says is, basically, that people use both forms. But since our article is about the street, and not the Hotel or the Church, we should call it what the city calls it, which is "St. Marks Place". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
its confusing when you add comments at the same indent above comments you already made it makes them easy to miss. can you avoid that thanksMrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NYC Department of Transportation does not use an apostrophe. [2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
they dont use a period either. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actually here [3] it says Wyckoff Street/St. Mark’s Place (included) from Court Street to 4th Avenue. maybe the one without punctuation is just an abbreviation? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to St. Mark's Place in Staten Island Brooklyn, not to the one in Manhattan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this one? [4] the street signs still have no punctuation. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but either way the current title of this article is wrong according to you. according to you it shouldnt have a period. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On street signs, the city does not use periods for abbreviations such as "ST" for Street, "AV" for Avenue, "PL" for "Place" and so on, but "Marks" is not an abbreviation for "Mark's". The DOT does use the period on their website. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a reference for that MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every street sign in New York City. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYC does not use periods on street signs for standard abbreviations
Reliable source Moscow, Henry (1978). The Street Book: An Encyclopedia of Manhattan's Street Names and Their Origins. New York: Hagstrom Company. ISBN 978-0-8232-1275-0. lists "St. James Place", "St. Johns Lane", "St. Lukes Place and "St. Marks Place", all in Manhattan, with no apostrope in the names. This is not a style choice on the book's part, as it lists "St. Vartan's Park" with the apostrophe. (pages 90-91). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However these reliable sources do use the apostrophe in "St. Mark's Place":
As the first is put together by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, it can be considered an official source. However, on the NYCLPC website, both forms, with and without aprostrophe, are used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of New York City does not have a listing for the street, mnor have I been able to find any usage of the street name elsewhere in the book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not official, but generally reliable, Google Maps does not use an apostrophe. (See the link at "goo.gl/maps/GUt") Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Bing Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times seems to favor using the apostrophe. A search of the Times archives since 1851 brings up just 4010 hits for "St. Marks Place" but 9650 hits for "St. Mark's Place", more than 2:1 for no apostrophe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits shows the same 2:1 result: '406,000 for "St. Mark's Place" Manhattan' compared to 265,000 for '"St. Marks Place" Manhattan' Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC requested

[edit]

hi we are trying to figure out the correct way to name this streets article. this source thinks the name has an apostrophe [5] but others disagree. i cant find any reliable sources that really prove anything. thanks for your input. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the preponderance of the evidence I detailed above, I have to conclude that although both forms are in common usage, "St. Mark's Place" is somewhat more common, by about 2:1. Given that, I believe MrsSunDoesntShine is correct and the article should be moved. Since I move it here most recently, I'm going to be bold and see if i can move it back -- I'm not sure if I can or not, which moves are allowed and which are not is somewhat mysterious to me, but I'm going to try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguing over one little apostrophe is beyond petty and extreme nitpicking! It is entirely totally completely inconsequential if there is one or not. A simple redirect will fix it... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

original research

[edit]

hi i keep trying to tag a section as original research but it keeps getting reverted, and this was the explanation [7] For instance, if an item says that such-and-such is depicted on the back of so-and-so's first album, you can verify that by reference to the album, you don't need a third party source to say it, since there is no conceptual difference between verifying a fact with a book and verifying a fact from the the album. This is true for all the entries on the section you mistakenly labelled as "OR". (This is why we can have "plot" section for books and movies, since the primary source serves as the best source for what the primary source says.) This holds as long as the popcult entry is straight-forward description -- if it strays into analysis or interpretation, such as "So-and-so used this photo because they love St. Mark's Place", it would require a third-party source.

doesnt this count as original research:

  1. 101 - Home of poet Ted Berrigan
  2. 102 - Home of independent filmmaker Scott Crary
  3. 103 - Home of singer/performer Klaus Nomi in the 1970s. Home of Joey Arias in the 1970s.

i dont see a way to verify this in the article. there arent any sources for it. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing original research with an unsourced fact. If you wish, you can tag these facts with a citation tag, to alert editors that a source is required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
are you sure? according to Wikipedia:No original research it says To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the case if no source exists. We don't know that to be the case, all we know at this point is that no source has been provided. Tagging it with a citation tag will give notice to editors that a source is needed. If one doesn't appear in a reasonable amount of time, then it would be best to remove the fact, rather than tagging it as "OR", since such a tag will not provoke editors into looking for a source. The "OR" tag is most often used for someone's new interpretation or analysis of facts, and not for a single unsourced fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, there is little difference between tagging the entire section with an unsourced section tag or an orginal research tag. We don't recommend that users add citation needed tags to many unsourced items in one section. In other words, we are not dealing with one unsourced fact. To an uninvolved editor, this information could be considered original research. Please remove all of the unsourced items to the talk page until you are ready to add sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced note

[edit]

Some anonymous IP placed the following directly into the references section: "19) http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/22/style/on-the-street-of-dreams.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm & http://onthisdayinfashion.com/?p=1754" Since it was completely unclear what this was supposed to cite for, I've just moved it here. If anyone can sort this out, please feel free. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant for the entry for #15, Paul McGregor. I've fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge of Progress

[edit]

The "Bridge of Progress" stretched over Ninth street, not Eighth Street. Probably should be removed or added to the AT Stewart or Wanamaker's article. Sources follow:

What to See in New York 1912 John Wanamaker, New York, p.22 http://books.google.com/books?id=IxAZAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA31&dq=%22Bridge%20of%20Progress%22&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q=%22Bridge%20of%20Progress%22&f=false


A picture of the bridge is found later in the book on the top of page 31: http://books.google.com/books?id=IxAZAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA31&dq=%22Bridge%20of%20Progress%22&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q=%22Bridge%20of%20Progress%22&f=false

This page (first of two) shows the "Bridge of Progress": http://www.evtransitions.com/2010/11/at-stewart-john-wanamaker-great-fire.html The picture on the page: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CH--_UL2t-o/TNyR6tTZozI/AAAAAAAAC7c/L8iMYPabNXU/s1600/stewart-from-4thave.jpg has the 4th avenue and 9th street street side in the foreground with the bridge behind it.

A better picture of the entire bridge, is available from the NYPL at

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?strucID=400797&imageID=711006f

The accompanying information says: 9th Street, west from 111 East 9th Street, just west of Third Avenue. At the left may be seen part of the south building of John Wanamaker's Department Store, and in the center the bridge which joins it to the north building.

The Greenwich Village Society for Historical Preservation has East 9th Street Then and Now

http://gvshp.org/blog/2011/12/07/east-9th-street-then-and-now/

There is even online film of the fire which destroyed the north building!

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/fire-aka-new-york-blaze

Lent (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already added the edit. No action needed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing in section "St. Mark's Place"

[edit]

While the spacing between list entries does make editing easier, it presents accessibility problems with people using screen readers. I recommend switching back to no spacing, as it does not affect rendering for the reader. For the very few who do edit this page, editing is not affected much by the removal of spacing. Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem for screen readers? And why is it more of a problem that any other single empty line in every other article? BMK (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the asterisks are read as list items. Every time there is a line between an asterisk (or another indentation, such as a colon or a number sign), the software will read it as a new list. For example:

*A

*B

will read A and B as being in 2 different lists; but

*A
*B

will read A and B as being in the same list. Epicgenius (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to me to be much of an accessibility "problem", since the list items are unaffected, and the structure of the section makes it clear that it's one list, not multiple ones. The advantages to non-screen-reading editors -- the majority of the editing population -- of having a blank line to help in editing should prevail here.BMK (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that the screen-reading editors would edit the article. For people who do not use screen readers, it is clear to them that is one list, and there is no discernible difference on the reader's end. But in the case of screen-reader users, the software does not see this "obvious" list setup and starts reading dozens of different lists, instead of one list with dozens of entries. Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. That "problem" doesn't really seem like much of a problem, since no information is lost, it's just the formatting of the information which is slightly out of whack. Balancing one against the other, I still think the space is preferable, which would not be the case if the elements in the list were single line or two, and not, as here, paragraphs with references which are diffiuclt to read in editing mode to begin with. BMK (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point. However, each list entry starts with an asterisk anyway (and in this case, each asterisk is also followed by the wikicode <nowiki>#</nowiki>). Epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, still hard to read w/o the empty line demarcation. BMK (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your viewpoint. Epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative lead images

[edit]

Beyond My Ken, I was on the fence about this as well... wasn't sure if we were aiming for the street + shopping or more so the latter. I took these shots back in the summer, and have a few more I uploaded if we think they're worthwhile:

There are also others, that I deemed less appropriate. I frequent this area and am open to requests to capture any areas in particular, but I favour the summer months with the more lively foliage. Despite the unusually warm weather obviously we've got a while till that photographic opportunity comes back around, but I digress :) — MusikAnimal talk 07:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, slight consensus per the discussion below. (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 17:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Both articles are about two different names given to different parts of the same straight road (the street names change at some point on the route of each respective artery). However, the slash with a space looks awkward, and MOS:SLASH doesn't recommend having spaces around the slash.

I wanted to move these two pages so that there are no spaces around the slash. However, I reverted these moves after Beyond My Ken wrote on my talk page, The space on either side of the virgule helps to show that it is not an actual combined name, but two names on the same article. I'm proposing these titles as a compromise because it treats the two names separately. epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support moves - As opposed to Epicgenius' last moves (to "8th Street/St. Mark's Place" and "York Avenue/Sutton Avenue") I support this current suggestion, which will make it even clearer that the components of the article titles are two separate names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I'm ok with this with the caveat that the titles could be misinterpreted as cross street references (which they are not). But the / is a bit odd so, ok. --regentspark (comment) 22:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose the suggested names seem like they refer to an intersection. However, I can't come up with any better suggestions. I dislike slashes in article titles but it seems acceptable here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:8th_Street_and_St._Mark%27s_Place&oldid=1197108513"