Talk:Tribeca

message: I have removed :image:IMG 0106.jpg, as the image is very dark, somewhat blurry, and difficult to see much detail.  --Aude 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it were a better exposed, higher resolution image, it adds absolutely nothing to the article in the way of information about what TriBeCa actually looks like.  It's such a generic image of a rooftop billboard that it could have been taken in any American city.  Postdlf 23:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of cities have billboards and water towers on building rooftops? I think the picture looks very New York. And it adds more flavor to the article than the lame image of the Umbrella sculpture in front of the Citigroup building. Redleaf 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree, the umbrella picture is also useless, but at least it benefits from recognizability.  What's your point?  If the chicken stew is bland and you don't have any spices, throw in some clay from from the flower pot in the front window?  Any flavour is better than no flavour?  
What this article needs is a street map delimiting the boundaries of the region in question.  Failing that, the article could at least point out the area in square km's of the region under discussion, since I really have no idea. MaxEnt 03:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep. Let's see this triangle. Ronstew (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMG 0106.jpg

message: Could someone add pronunciation? I think it's  but I'm not certain. EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pronunciation.  Seconded, it's missing sorely from this article. Maikel (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, and for the record, it's: /tɹaɪbɛkə/. Geoking66talk 17:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounciation

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose. Tribeca is an abbreviation Triangle Below Canal Street 132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: No one in the world that can read writes "TriBeCa" and I don't know why this article would use that alternating case style.  It's "Tribeca".
216.232.157.126 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PrEcIsElY. The name of the article is asinine. Varlaam (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WhAtIsGoiNGON?

message: :The intro section here is horrendous.  It starts off with how the article's subject faired after 9-11 before even introducing a reader into what the article is about.  Can someone with knowledge rewrite this? Hooper (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: All that historical information about the Tribeca name seems inappropriate for "architecture".  Maybe it should be split off? 69.11.4.75 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Would it be possible to get a street map of some sort to indicate more clearly where the area is? matt91486 (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can click the coordinates at the top of the article page, and we could add a crude text mode map like the one in Boerum Hill.  Jim.henderson (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The article needs a map of all or most of Manhattan that shows where in Manhattan the neighborhood is.CountMacula (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The TriBeCa Notable Residents lists Yoko Ono among them.  
I hadn't heard she had left The Dakota.  I cecked her page in Wikipedia and it still has her living in The Dakota on the Upper West Side.
Ffferocious (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TriBeCa Notable Residents 

message: The street scene is far preferable as a lede than a generic building, if consensus demands a change fine, otherwise let it be...Modernist (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede image

message: You are refering to "Vesey Street".   Where is that ?   If you meant to write "Vestry Street",   that seems to be a long way from the Chambers St which is also mentioned. Lathamibird (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Go look on a map. You should be able to find it at the bottom of Tribeca near the World Trade Center. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Vesey Street ? 

message: ...is not a portmanteau word. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a portmanteau as "a word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms". DUMBO stands for Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass, so therefore, it is an acronym, "a word formed from the first letters of each one of the words in a phrase". So, I have removed it from the body of the Tribeca article. Epic Genius (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you might want to actually read the section as it stands.  i have reverted you, for obvious reasons. BMK (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I was confused for a moment... but now the wording seems fine, seeing as acronyms are now mentioned. Epic Genius (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

text: And why is it that acronyms are listed on a page about TriBeCa? Seems like acronym-named neighborhoods are pretty irrelevant to put on this page. Since it's been a year, I will be bold and delete. Jazzcowboy (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUMBO 

message: DUMBO is in Brooklyn, not Manhattan. Please make the change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.39.2 (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't say it's in Manhattan, it refers to "New York City". BMK (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: DUMBO, redux

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tribeca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219090917/http://fordfound.org:80/pdfs/impact/responding_to_attacks.pdf to http://www.fordfound.org/pdfs/impact/responding_to_attacks.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070110043951/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/12312006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/12312006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ...to read an editor's massive deletion of completely sourced material, with no explanation except that the article was better before.  Here is the version of the article before the addition of the sourced edits , and here is the article after the addition of the sourced edits . Readers should compare the two versions and express their opinion on the sourced material – which largely fleshes out the history of the Tribeca area, including removing unsourced claims that have been in the article for years without being sourced – as to whether it improves the article or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *So...what you're saying is that because you didn't like my standardizing references to a format that matches the format used by the majority of references in the article, you arbitrarily deleted sourced information which expanded the history of Tribeca? Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *A couple of points to be made about references.  First, WP:Citing sources#Citation style – which is an editing guideline – does indeed say that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style [of reference]...", but goes on to say that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." The suggestion is then made that editors "defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page..."As to those points, the very first edit to the page which has a reference which involves a citation style choice is this one, and the citation style used was: Gray, Christopher (2000, June 25). "Streetscapes/105 Hudson Street; A TriBeCa Taste of the Young Carrere & Hastings". New York Times - in other words: "author (date) title, source".  This is the style that is generated by use of the "cite" templates. The article grew slowly and consistently, and there is no one revision that one can point to and say "This is the edit of the first major contributor", but the edit which contains the first use of a formal citation can be said to establish as precedent the citation style for the article.Now, I dont want to be unfair. When I started my recent work on the article the current revision was this.  There were 38 references, 20 of which involved specifying the date of the source.  Of those 20, six had the date of the source following the author -- the format used in the first reference which created the precedent for the article -- and the others had the date located in a later place, which I believe to be Alansohn's preferred format.The upshot of this is that I think my changing the reference style to match the first formal reference in the article is a defensible decision, but Alansohn does have a point that the majority of the references which cited the date of a source did not use that format.  However, a guideline is not a policy, it is not mandatory, and certainly shouldn't be the cause of edit warring.  So, if Alansohn's objection is to the changing of the reference formats, I'm willing to revert my changes, restoring the reliably sourced material I added and returning the references to their previous state.  I am hopeful that this will bring this dispute to an amiable end. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alright, I have, I believe, restored the references to the state they were in before my editing 9with the exception of obvious mistakes and the addition of missing information), leaving in the article the reliably source information I added. If I missed one, I apologize, it should be easily fixed.  I do believe that it was unwarranted of Alansohn to deleted a large amount of source information which expanded and improved the article simply because of the change of citation style to one he apparently doesn't like.  In fact, I don't particularly like the "author (date) title source" style that I changed it to, it's not my personal preference, but since it's the style generated by the cite templates, having a consistent style with an article (as suggested by the guideline Alansohn likes to cite) is necessarily going to involve mimicking that style. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors are requested... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Tribeca. 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://archive.is/20140116195827/http://voices.yahoo.com/the-safest-most-dangerous-areas-york-city-7542578.html to http://voices.yahoo.com/the-safest-most-dangerous-areas-york-city-7542578.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160821192055/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150707/tribeca/theres-new-ghostbusters-logo-at-tribecas-famed-ladder-8-firehouse to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150707/tribeca/theres-new-ghostbusters-logo-at-tribecas-famed-ladder-8-firehouse
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320182938/http://www.dnainfo.com/20110504/downtown/artists-911-sculpture-rises-tribeca to http://www.dnainfo.com/20110504/downtown/artists-911-sculpture-rises-tribeca
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530063914/http://gawker.com/5549495/ to http://gawker.com/5549495/
*Added  tag to http://www.bergproperties.com/blog/u2s-edge-settles-into-43-million-tribeca-penthouse-and-reportedly-pays-about-15-million-for-120
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425110319/http://manhattan.about.com/od/2006tribecafilmfestiva1/a/familyfestival.htm to http://manhattan.about.com/od/2006tribecafilmfestiva1/a/familyfestival.htm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207050704/http://manhattan.about.com/od/neighborhoodguide/p/tribecaprofile.htm to http://manhattan.about.com/od/neighborhoodguide/p/tribecaprofile.htm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210142704/http://manhattan.about.com/od/neighborhoodguide/ss/tribecawalk.htm to http://manhattan.about.com/od/neighborhoodguide/ss/tribecawalk.htm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110322135127/http://www.batteryparkblog.com/ to http://www.batteryparkblog.com/
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) 04:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What's the big deal with editing the said article to read that the 2016 population figure was an estimate and not an exact figure? There was no census taken in 2016. And @Modernist, don't you DARE tell me what I can and can't do! You are not a sysop, and you deserved what you got in my last edit to this article, because you deliberately chose not to provide an edit summary with a reason why you reverted my edit. You didn't even bring it up on my own personal talk page. 148.75.152.120 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure the figure is referenced, but we have to acknowledge that 2016 is not a census year. So, the figure has to be acknowledged as an estimate. If you're not stupid, you should pay attention to these points. 148.75.152.120 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 population figure 

message: I took a look at the map for Tribeca and found that it was in a Non-English language on the English article, but only for the area of Manhattan which is in the original area of the map. I believe it is in Polish? Is there a reason for this and could it be modified to be in English for the English article? 2600:1000:A021:E943:F8B5:A535:3663:1503 (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the Manhattan area is still not in English as of 01 Jun 24. 2001:8003:1405:3F00:6D3B:4A2:A4B7:FCFD (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map in Non-English Language