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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Club 57 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Patti Smith 

message: Is it just me, or does this article seem like it needs desperate reconstruction? Tajik24 (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: hi we are trying to figure out the correct way to name this streets article. this source thinks the name has an apostrophe  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)
thread_title: RfC requested

message: hi i keep trying to tag a section as original research but it keeps getting reverted, and this was the explanation  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:
#101 - Home of poet Ted Berrigan
#102 - Home of independent filmmaker Scott Crary
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was meant for the entry for #15, Paul McGregor.  I've fixed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced note 

message: 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)
replies: text: You already added the edit. No action needed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge of Progress 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 #). Epicgenius (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, still hard to read w/o the empty line demarcation. BMK (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your viewpoint. Epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing in section "St. Mark's Place" 

message: , 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:
File:St. Mark's Place 8th Street Manhattan in 2015.JPG
File:St. Mark's Place 8th Street Manhattan in 2015 2.JPG
File:St. Mark's Place 8th Street Manhattan in 2015 3.JPG
File:St. Mark's Place 8th Street Manhattan in 2015 4.JPG
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)
thread_title:  Alternative lead images