Talk:Hudson Square

Shopping Guide

This claims to be a part of SoHo but isn't mentioned in that well-referenced and detailed article; looks like a shopping guide to me, without any reliable sources (i.e., not self-serving ones) documenting any of the assertions. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont have time to change it right now, but I will tomorrow morning. Please dont delete this quite yet, I spent hours on it. Just give me some time to improve it. At worst, I'll just take out everytihng about the restaurants and businesses and just keep it bare bones. a neighborhood is defined by the people who live there, and therefore only mass participation can give a good sense of a neighborhood really. give me a day to improve it a little, but I have to go to work now and i'd be upset if it were gone when I got home!Madelkaye (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the article: copyedited, removed unsourced opinions, fixed formatting and layout and added images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hudson Square. 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/20101126235719/http://lowermanhattan.info/about/history/did_you_know/did_you_know_that_31780.aspx to http://www.lowermanhattan.info/about/history/did_you_know/did_you_know_that_31780.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Photograph

I'm looking for some input on photographs. User:Beyond My Ken has placed his image on this page. Aside from its questionable suitability, this photograph is of poor technical quality: exhibiting jpeg artifacts, chromatic aberrations, and oversaturation. I personally believe an photograph like this this is both more suitable, in addition to being of clearly higher technical quality. Thoughts? Filetime (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC to settle this question fairly Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is this edit an improvement to the article?

This edit removed two images from the article and left it with only one small lede image two small images. Does this edit improve the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this RfC has been placed on the talk page of Wiki{=Project New York City, the only WikiProject listed above. WP:CANVASSING of individual editors should be avoided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No - The removed images are perfectly reasonable images, and are not of "loew quality" as claimed. The image left does not show the neighborhood to good advantage, and is presented at much too small a size to be useful to the reader. The article was not improved by this edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that adding the neighborhood photo (at an appropriate size) would improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes – This image is very clearly of low technical quality, exhibiting jpeg artifacts, chromatic aberrations, and oversaturation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filetime (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, though an addition of the neighborhood overview shot would also be reasonable. The removed images are good-enough quality for our purposes. I would definitely keep the first one. The playhouse one could go if the venue is notable enough and already has its own article, but could be kept if it doesn't have a stand-alone page (since we'd be apt to merge it to here if it's not quite notable yet also not WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The one most likely to be reasonably removed is the One Hudson Square image since that does have its own article. So, I think I would revert to BMK's version, then replace the OHS image with the aerial shot. Maybe rearrange them, like lead with the aerial shot. I like the first image, in giving an idea of the historical architectural style, but it's not really a shot of Hudson Square as a whole thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• No - The images that were removed were of good quality and the neighborhood shot is actually an improvement to the article. Sea Ane (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - The image with the Federal style houses has too many trees and foliage that obscure the houses, and that photo isn't really representative of the entire neighborhood. The SoHo Playhouse has its own article, so it isn't necessary. I would expect to see the view over Hudson Square photo in the lead, and since there is no infobox, it could be enlarged a little bit. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, per reasons provided by Beyond My Ken Idealigic (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, though SMcCandlish's suggestions might well work. The removed images aren't great, but their removal is not an improvement. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• No As per user SMcCandlish.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• BMK has plastered his own images in the lead of dozens and dozens of articles on New York when very often quality and even featured images of these subjects exist. For no article with such a rich selection of images should we have to resort to these pixelated and often out of focus photographs. Furthermore, multiple editors (see the most recent incident) have expressed concern that the user's edit behaviors verge on Ownership. Filetime (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• On the other hand, Filetime has made a habit of removing images of reasonable and practical technical quality, but superior visual quality, with technical proficient images which do no fulfill the function they need to serve on Wikipedia. They seem not to understand that images must meet the job the are intended to do, and that high technical quality is not the be-all-and-end-all of image selection on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding my "plastering" of images I've taken, according to this counter, 3,288 of my images are in use on en.Wiki. Since I've been here for 16 years (as of June 26), that works out to 205.5 images per year. Filetime, on the other hand, has 1,241 images in use on en.Wiki. They've been here for 1.25 years, so that works out to be 992.8 images per year. If Filetime continues to add images to articles at the rate they're going at now, by the time they've been here 16 years, as I have, they will have almost 16,000 images in use on en.wiki. There's no reason, of course, that Filetime shouldn't add their images to articles if it's appropriate to do so, and, pace Filetime, the same goes for me as well, but if the charge of "plastering images [in] dozens and dozens of articles" is going to be thrown around, it would seem more appropriate to apply the charge to Filetime than to me, given these numbers.
  I suggest that Filetime cut back on their hyperbole and commit themselves to dealing with other editors as collaborators and not as competitors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Filetiime: You changed the title of this section and removed "RfC" from it. You cannot do this. Per the wording above, "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion". I am that editor, and the question I am asking is the one I titled the RfC with. Please do not do this again or I will seek admin relief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• One image? Please scroll through the article and count. Filetime (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Question corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)