Talk:List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan

message: I got this year's Guide to New York City Landmarks for Christmas and have been walking (and bicycling) around town, photographing listed buildings.  However, there seems to be a shortage of Wikiplaces to put them.  Many NYCL are not NRHP, hence they don't fit in the NRHP tabular articles, and most don't have articles of their own.  Would someone who understands tables like to split this article into five or more tabular ones similar to the NRHP Boro articles?  Even better if there can be some sort of correlation between the National and City lists.  Jim.henderson (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  Just noticed this list-article and your comment.  Definitely could help in terms of forming list-tables that work better.  Closest examples in Wikipedia are probably Los Angeles and its LAHCMs (more numerous than List of RHPs in Los Angeles and Chicago and its List of Chicago Landmarks more numerous than List of RHPs in Chicago.  What do u think about those. doncram (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Homeless photos

message: Splendid.  I see from your edit list that you're highly experienced with these matters.  After a week without a direct answer here, I said a bit more on this subject in Wikipedia talk:Project_New_York_City#List of New York City Designated Landmarks with no better response.  Meanwhile, I came to understand that my original problem of where to put pictures isn't really a problem; just insert the pix and they run down the side of the table, which shrinks away from them in a reasonably satisfactory manner.
NYC is divided into five Boros, of which Manhattan is the inner one, crammed full of historic sites/sights.  Having seen your reply, I did the easy part, pulling the Outer Boros out of this oversized article and giving each its own article.  Those articles need a bunch more work internally, but it's mostly filling in the forms.  In a few hours I'll start installing in-links and out; not difficult for someone familiar with the geography and relevant articles.  For the moment this LoNYCDL article is only Manhattan, and I think rather than use the same cut and paste method I'll covert it to List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan by a Move operation.  Whatever; the question can stew in my mind all night unless someone else decides which method is better and does it.
:Sounds fine and appropriate to do move operation that way. doncram (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a lot of work also in dividing up the List of RHPs in NYC, following Dmadeo's beginning work including decision to divide New York County into 5 geographical chunks (which i think are: Above 110 St., 59-110, 14-59, below 14th, and smaller islands).  It worked fine in that dividing process to just move most items to whichever geo-based article where we thought they belonged, then clean up later, switching some later to classify them correctly as needed.  For that, it was extremely helpful to use the coordinates which showed locations on the accompanying Google maps.  If there are coords available for the NYCDLs, that would be really great to bring those in sooner rather than later, but even if not the process can continue.  Also more recently i divided up List of RHPs in Baltimore into 5 geo-based chunks, by the way, and there was some discussion related to Philadelphia and Baltimore, both, still showing at wt:NRHP. What is important is selecting a complete partition of the city, either using some official district system (as done in Baltimore) or some other clear enough system like Dmadeo chose. doncram (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Fine to take the lead in format of table you prefer, with photos riding alongside as in the List of Chicago Landmarks.  I actually think that makes a nice change in formatting, just for variety's sake, vs. the NRHP lists for NYC.  Also, by the way, I could help come up with infobox that works for NYCDLs, either a new one or modifying the local1 infobox used in some articles for individual LAHCMs which are not also NRHPs.  By the way, i think there is a need for a WikiProject that would support local designations and other non-NRHP historic sites world-wide;  I mean to put up a proposal for that soon.  What you're doing seems great so far.  Cheers, doncram (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of using the 12 Community Districts, because those are official districts of the city, and do not have to be named and defined and explained and defended.  I suggest adding a CDs/neighborhood column to the tables and beginning to identify which is the CD for each entry.  When enough are identified, then split out separate list-articles.  Perhaps the CD's having most Landmarks get separate articles, and smaller CDs are left combined into one list-article.  Anyhow i would identify the CDs on this list-article and see how many are in each, before deciding on split to implement.  That would be a lot of work to do, but i don't see the need to rush to split, either. doncram (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * As a resident, I disagee.  We could use Police precincts as easily and still be incomprehensible to most readers.  Community boards are *not* something most residents deal with.  I also suspect it would not equitably split up the island's nrhp entries.  I offer an extension of the current idea down below dm (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Split and tabulate

message: *Overview map page 4
*1 - Financial District, Battery Park - p5 - CB01
*2 - Civic Center, Tribeca - p20 - CB01
*3 - Soho, Little Italy - p38 - CB02
*4 - Bowery, Chinatown, Lower East Side - p44 - CB03 & CB02
*5 - West Village - p50 - CB02
*4 - East Village - p59 - "4" is presumably a typo in the book -  CB03 & CB02
*7 - Chelsea - p70 - CB04
*8 - Ladies' Mile, Gramercy Park - p73 CB05 & CB04
*9 - Theater District - p89 - CB04
*10 - Midtown East:Murray Hill, Tudor City - p97 - CBO5 & CB06
*11 - Rockefeller Center East to Turtle Bay - p111 - CB05 & CB06
*12 - Midtown West, 50th Street to 60th Street - p122 - CB04
*13 - Upper West Side, South of 83rd Street - p131 - CB07
* Central Park - p133
*14 - Upper West Side, North of 83d Street - p144 - CB07
*15 - Upper East Side, South of 76th Street - p152 - CB08
*16 - Upper East Side, 76th Street to 94th Street - p170 CB08
*17 - Upper East Side and East Harlem, 94th Street to 106th Street - p185 -CB11 & CB08
*18 - Morningside Heights, Harlem, Sugar Hill - p188 - CB09 & CB10
*19 - Washingtone Heights, Inwood - p209 - CB12
Jim.henderson (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *sounds like you understand it as well as I do.   I'm not sure they're always better, but I have taken a lot of photos too, many of them are in the backlog which I havent bothered to upload yet since the articles werent created.   Anyway, I might make the Met on Friday and the BK museum on Saturday.  Not sure yet.  dm (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)  Sounds like you both understand it perfectly well.  I wrote out the following so i guess i will post it now, but i may not have anything further to say, later.  I've read Dmadeo's comments dated 1 February in 2 places above, including specific suggestion to split the zones used already in the Manhattan NRHP lists.  About using the Community Boards, it's feasible to create maps to upload to Commons and to use in these articles;  several wp:NRHPers have been creating maps left and right, recently.  Also, it's not a bad thing to use Community Boards which people don't know about much, in terms of they will then learn about them.  At the same time as they learn about NRHPs and about NYC Landmarks, which they also don't know anything about.  Your work will kind of publicize the official districts.  Offhand, Community boards sounds like a more related type of official district than do police precincts, more worth publicizing perhaps.  And, it is only NYC's NRHP list which is split by anything other than official districts;  official neighborhoods/districts are used in Baltimore, Chicago, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Philly, Los Angeles, and Seattle's NRHP and similar lists.  In some discussions, it has been noted that there are concentrations of NRHPs or other sites in some parts of the partitions, like in Central Philly and Central Baltimore and Downtown Syracuse;  no official partition is likely to split up the historic sites into equal chunks.  In some discussions leading to many of these, local wikipedians stated they were not aware of those neighborhood/district schemes, but then the official partitions turned out to work pretty well.  For official districts, you can link to an article about each separate district, or you can link to an article about the official districts that has a subsection for each one, which is very useful.  (Like, for CB 7, you can wikilink to an article about CB 7, and not have to define it in your own article.)  Also, for official districts, you can identify them in a column (like is now done for the neighborhoods in Syracuse) OR you can use the districts to divide up the list-article, and you can also make list-articles that cover more than one of the districts, with the districts named in a column.  With non-official districts that you cannot succinctly identify for use in a column, I think you can only use the partition for dividing up the list-article.  All that said, i think it is okay if you come to a consensus to use the further split areas which are not official districts.  I think it's a good idea to get input from other NYC wikipedians, though, at Meetups and/or at WikiProject NYC.  Also, it would be good to work/ask for help in the Talk pages of articles like List of neighborhoods in Manhattan or List of neighborhoods in New York City or whatever may exist.  Good luck and have fun and all that... :) doncram (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this from the List of Manhattan neighborhoods page says it all. dm (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It's sure not like the Arrondissements of Paris, which are approximately the same size as our CB but residents all know their boundaries.  Sorry; recovering more slowly than expected from a minor illness I haven't been doing anything with this.  I'll also miss the Friday evening Wikimedia event in Museum of Modern Art for sure and probably the Saturday one at Brooklyn Museum as well.  Anyway all CB got their own articles last year and Manhattan mostly got them the year before, so the Manhattan Landmark article, and the local Landmark articles when eventually they are made, needn't do a lot more than point at them for definition.  If upon recovering health I decide my preference for using CB does not look like a fever induced fantasy, then that's the way I'll want to go.  Jim.henderson (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps in guidebook vs CB 

message: Shouldn't this be titled "List of New York City Landmarks in Manhattan", rather than "List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan"?  And likewise for the other borough lists.  The commission is called the NYC Landmarks Commission, right?  I also started an overall list of lists, at List of New York City Landmarks.  If there is something i don't understand, perhaps that will have to be renamed to be consistent here, but currently i think it's the other way around. doncram (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of article, and top level list-article 

message: Hey, in some ways I like the bright red color that has been used for designating NYC Landmarks, but it is really rather bright.  It's a bit hard to read through it, in Lincoln Building (1 Union Square, New York, New York) and other applications.  There are guidelines on use of color in wikipedia (i think perhaps at wp:color) and I think the color choice might want to be revisited at some future date.
But, in the meantime, the color is being hard-coded into articles, such as putting "#ff0000" into the "designated_other1_color" field within NRHP infoboxes of sites like the Lincoln Building one (which is NRHP-listed and a NYC Landmark).  I set up Template:NYCLcolor just now, and suggest henceforth putting in  instead.  It just inserts "#ff0000", but that would allow for changing the color everywhere, later, if a choice is made.  And it might be easier to remember than "ff0000" when editing articles.
There is also template:NYCL color with a space, which has not been used much (if at all), which has slightly different coding to apply the same color for a table cell, such as in this demonstration example:
 	Name                             	Designation date
1	Ladies' Mile Historic District   	
2	Lincoln Building (1 Union Square)	
3	Noho Historic District           	
4	St. Mark's Historic District     	
(In the example i use NRHP blue color for the Lincoln Building, to show it at its higher national-level designation, within a table of NYCLs.)  So, while i am not advocating a color change now, could this template be used, going forward?  I just think it is better editing practice. doncram (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine bringing the brightness down a notch, but I picked it because it was easy to remember (ha!) and was pretty close to the red apple color of the city. dm (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bright red color and use of color template