Talk:Manhattanhenge

message: Additional verification can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/nyregion/thecity/21fyi.html?ex=1149134400&en=f08227dabe2852dd&ei=5070.
Palaverist 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification

message: Seems like this should be merged.Mattnt 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The intro to this article is somewhat confusing because 'east-west streets' would imply an equinotial alignment, not solstitial. In fact it's neither since the 'east-west' grid is not due east-west. It would be better, I feel, to omit all references to cardinal points unless actual bearings are given. Just my 2¢ Akhen3sir (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably splitting hairs.  The east/west reference is more to differentiate it from the north/south streets.  The east/west streets are labeled that way (e.g., West 42nd/East 42nd). You are correct they don't line up to the cardinal points and that should probably be made clearer. Americasroof (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: East-West Streets

message: under the picture it says that the sun set to the right of the center on July 13, 2006, while it set on the center line on July 12. This must be wrong, on July 13, the sun always sets more left than on July 12! --androl (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above note by Androl is correct; I noticed this on the talk page after making the same note on the main page.  The  (refracted) sun set at true azimuth 300.39 degrees on July 12, 2006 and 300.19 degrees on July 13. That is, the sun would set further to the left on July 13 than it did on the 12th. The original captioner is in error.  He probably did not actually observe on July 12, or took the picture from a different altitude, causing intervening objects to change the apparent sunset time, or just pasted in something he saw from an article, and didn't calculate correctly.  Eliasen (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I also corrected the bearing difference from 28.9 to 29.0 based on the Petzold article linked at bottom.  In that article, Petzold derives the bearing from simplifications of plane geometry and spherical geometry.  Both are slightly incorrect.  Using higher-accuracy ellipsoidal bearing calculations (due to T. Vincenty) for the points Petzold cites gives an azimuth difference of 29.008 degrees.  See   Eliasen (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sunset on 13th of July 

message: Beyond My Ken reverted my Manhattanhenge_map.svg image twice, claiming it a mess.
Although the text already describes the phenomenon, I think readers who are less familiar with NYC geography, or think more visually (as I do) will benefit from an image which illustrates the directions of sunrise and sunset of both Manhattanhenge and throughout the year.
I agree that my first image was unnecessarily large and thus made it a much smaller thumbnail which I believe does not negatively affect the article.
Could you please suggest changes to the image (other than to remove it) that would make it less messy, as you put it?
Why do you think it a mess? Is it because the background bitmap is too dark, making the text unreadable?
Would it also be better if I called it a "satellite view" instead of a "map"?
Thanks,
cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  12:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a mess because of all of the overlapping text. How about making two maps, one for the summer and one for the winter? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much text, at too small a size, makes it unreadable at any reasonable presentation size.  But more than that, even at 2000px width, the information is confusing and difficult to parse.  What is the purpose of the image?  To show the reader that the sun sets at difficult angles at different times of the year?  If that's the case, one or two examples would suffice -- the extremes and Manhattanhenge.  Overall, the image does not present information in a way that's easily understandable by the reader.  Try Acps's suggestion and simplify and see what you come up with -- but make any text on the image easy to read against the background. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with above Acps and Ken. What I suggest you do is remove a few of the lines and use an idealised grid rather than manhatten itself; or perhaps zoom into manhatten with a magnifying glass. Or animate it. Or heck pretty much anything but this, there's just too much infomration in the diagram! Egg Centric 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks and good effort, Egg Centric. I like that idea! I just centered it on W 34/Park Ave as that's reputedly the best place to view it, but it really applies to all of NYC. Showing the magnification might imply that it only applies at that point (or does it?) I'll see what I can come up with over the weekend... cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  12:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the image on the right better? I've fixed the overlapping, cluttered and small text. Thanks, cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  04:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's significantly better.  Any chance you can change the purple color, which I find hard to read due to lack of contrast?  Also, it should be displayes somewhat larger, so that the text is more easily readable, or else the text size should be larger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. How's that? If there aren't any objections, I'll put it on the article. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK to me.  I suspect it will be best in the uper right corner at about 350 to 400px width.  I'd do it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with the "css crop image" template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As you can tell, the image crop template allows only part of an image to be used as a thumbnail but an interested reader can click it to see the whole image; perhaps the caption could state so. It's rather tricky to use, though. Both bSize and cWidth are set to the appropriate width as in normal thumbnails, then cHeight and oTop are tweaked by trial-and-error to get an appropriate crop window. Alternatively, open the image at the appropriate size in an image editor. oTop is the Y-coordinate of the top of the crop and cHeight is the Y-coordinate of the bottom minus the Y-coordinate of the top of the crop. I've made you a 350px version here. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  01:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've put your 350px version into the article, and I think it looks pretty good.  Let's see what kind of reaction it gets.  Thanks for taking the time to make those changes to the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is the perfect example of what not to do. It contains way too much information and the most important one doesn't stand out from the rest. It took me three minutes to figure out the dates and directions of the Manhattanhenge. Since I want to be constructive here are a few practical comments: don't include the time on the picture. First it is totally irrelevant and second it hides the real information: the dates. The times can be added (and updated for the coming years) in the text as a table. Then, this page is not about equinoxes and solstices. There is no reason to use so many colors to identify them. If you really wish to add them for reference (a good idea), you can draw two sectors representing all sunrises and sunsets, without dates. With some transparency, they will be visible but not "in your face". Of course the important information is: the directions and dates of the Manhattanhenge since this is what is being illustrated. So, really, only two colors are needed: the Manhattanhenge directions and the sunrise-sunset sectors. And only 4 dates: those of the effect as other dates will be confusing. And no need to add dashed versus non-dashed arrows. Just add that sunrises are on the east and sunsets on the west. I hope I didn't sound too grumpy ! I hope you'll find these tips to simplify the drawing useful. Matt 109.9.51.77 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  [meta comment] Your comments are quite constructive overall, but you really really really could have left out the first three sentences. They “taint” the entire rest of your paragraph and make you sound dismissive. — Timwi (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite image showing directions of sunrise/sunset 

message: I am not a graphics artist. I did this in microsoft paint, it took all of two minutes, and it obviously doesn't meet any quality standard at all (other than, say, "bad quality" or "atrocious quality"). But I think a properly done version like this - showing manhatten as a whole, then zooming in to show the street grid pattern, then how the sun can line up - would be clear: Egg Centric 16:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and good effort, Egg Centric. I like that idea! I just centered it on W 34/Park Ave as that's reputedly the best place to view it, but it really applies to all of NYC. Showing the magnification might imply that it only applies at that point (or does it?) I'll see what I can come up with over the weekend... cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  12:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the image on the right better? I've fixed the overlapping, cluttered and small text. Thanks, cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  04:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's significantly better.  Any chance you can change the purple color, which I find hard to read due to lack of contrast?  Also, it should be displayes somewhat larger, so that the text is more easily readable, or else the text size should be larger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. How's that? If there aren't any objections, I'll put it on the article. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK to me.  I suspect it will be best in the uper right corner at about 350 to 400px width.  I'd do it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with the "css crop image" template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As you can tell, the image crop template allows only part of an image to be used as a thumbnail but an interested reader can click it to see the whole image; perhaps the caption could state so. It's rather tricky to use, though. Both bSize and cWidth are set to the appropriate width as in normal thumbnails, then cHeight and oTop are tweaked by trial-and-error to get an appropriate crop window. Alternatively, open the image at the appropriate size in an image editor. oTop is the Y-coordinate of the top of the crop and cHeight is the Y-coordinate of the bottom minus the Y-coordinate of the top of the crop. I've made you a 350px version here. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ  01:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've put your 350px version into the article, and I think it looks pretty good.  Let's see what kind of reaction it gets.  Thanks for taking the time to make those changes to the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is the perfect example of what not to do. It contains way too much information and the most important one doesn't stand out from the rest. It took me three minutes to figure out the dates and directions of the Manhattanhenge. Since I want to be constructive here are a few practical comments: don't include the time on the picture. First it is totally irrelevant and second it hides the real information: the dates. The times can be added (and updated for the coming years) in the text as a table. Then, this page is not about equinoxes and solstices. There is no reason to use so many colors to identify them. If you really wish to add them for reference (a good idea), you can draw two sectors representing all sunrises and sunsets, without dates. With some transparency, they will be visible but not "in your face". Of course the important information is: the directions and dates of the Manhattanhenge since this is what is being illustrated. So, really, only two colors are needed: the Manhattanhenge directions and the sunrise-sunset sectors. And only 4 dates: those of the effect as other dates will be confusing. And no need to add dashed versus non-dashed arrows. Just add that sunrises are on the east and sunsets on the west. I hope I didn't sound too grumpy ! I hope you'll find these tips to simplify the drawing useful. Matt 109.9.51.77 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  [meta comment] Your comments are quite constructive overall, but you really really really could have left out the first three sentences. They “taint” the entire rest of your paragraph and make you sound dismissive. — Timwi (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mockup of what you could try

message: This article asserts that the year's grid-aligned sunrises are not "Manhattanhenges" but it provides no citation to support that assertion.
The article does not contain the sentence "No sunrise is a Manhattanhenge" but its assertion that only sunsets are Manhattanhenges is the logical equivalent of "No sunrise is a Manhattanhenge" and so the same standard for citation and footnoting applies. How is it that we KNOW that the word "Manhattanhenges" doesn't include grid-aligned sunrises? WHY do the people who use the word in a way that arbitrarily and capriciously excludes sunrises use it that way? What is a RATIONALE for this?
Google's algorithm may favor more-recent over less-recent pages. It is very hard right now (May 29th) to find a page where "Manhattanhenges" includes sunrises. I know that such sources exist because I have read them, long ago (I suspect long enough ago that the term predates the ascendancy of Dr. Tyson). It will be easier to find such sources if I google again in early December, when, for recency, they will "float to the top". I have been in a cab in December when 1010-WINS announced that a Manhattanhenge sunrise would occur the next day or had occurred hours earlier that morning.
The entire matter of excluding late-Autumn and early-Winter grid-aligned sunrises from the word "Manhattanhenges" should be looked at with skepticism until sufficient documentation is supplied.2604:2000:C682:2D00:3934:55A0:33B5:B02F (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No winter sunrises? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Manhattanhenge. 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/20160509131514/http://gothamist.com/2016/05/06/manhattanhenge_2016_dates.php to http://gothamist.com/2016/05/06/manhattanhenge_2016_dates.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170517043032/http://gothamist.com/2017/05/15/manhattanhenge_2017_dates.php to http://gothamist.com/2017/05/15/manhattanhenge_2017_dates.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609073024/http://www.sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10222 to http://www.sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10222
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) 06:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: discovered that its main street almost framed the rising sun on Midsummer Day and the setting sun on Midwinter Day, they consulted Greenwich Observatory to obtain the exact angle required at their latitude, and persuaded their engineers to shift the grid of roads a few degrees.
OK, but say if they shifted it even more, to avoid traffic hazards, or less ...Jidanni (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say how they shifted it 

message: Perhaps mention the same  concept can be used for mountain identification.  Jidanni (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The same Manhattanhenge concept can be used for mountain identification