text:
Talk:Mandarmani

this section moved to here from Talk:Mandarmoni
We have visited Leisure N Luxury (locally known as Sana Beach Resorts or Sandipan Babu's lodge.

Though it is not fully functioning but we feel within a month or two i,e. JAN'07 this would be a pride of Bengal.

The Beach certainly the best in Bengal

Suggestion: to put signboard then it would be easier to locate. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 59.93.215.5 (talk • contribs) 2 Jan 07

Is this an article?
This article was initially described as a beautiful virgin beach resort. The word resort was removed in a previous edit by another user. Does this mean it is only a beach or is there a resort on the beach too? If it is only a beach, then maybe this is not an article, but only an attraction.
 * All indications are that it is just a beach some distance from Digha. I think it should just be redirected there and unlinked from Digha.
 * No - if it is some distance away the article guideline suggests it be a separate destination. I can point to other articles where this precedent has been set for a beach. I would rather wait and see what evolved. At least 2 people think it is a destination to go to because the edits on Digha for the link were some time ago in November 2005. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:24, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * This is actually a generic problem for India. I think I had better raise it in Project:What is an article? --(WT-en) Ravikiran 08:23, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)

Mandarmani is a separate destination. The beach here is virgin and there are only a few resorts to stay ( as of June 7 2006).

Candidate for protection
One of the few accepted grounds for protecting an article is to stop edit wars, which this article certainly seems to be experiencing. Folks, please try to reach consensus on article contents, consistent with the Project:Manual of style, including Project:Don't tout, and so on. This is a warning that protection is starting to be considered. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:22, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

hotel demolition
Anyone know anything more about this? Is it ALL hotels they are trying to demolish, or just a few? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

 * This is hysterical! It sounds like squatters set up "hotels" on some beach and then went after Wikivoyage? This whole spam saga is the weirdest I think I've seen. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:49, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Well no. Pretty much all construction in India is illegal, because there are so many regulations to keep up with that it is impossible to do anything lawful. So the only way to build anything is to go ahead and build it, and then pay bribes to regularise it. The spammers are not hotel owners. It is some booking agent who has been trying very hard to get his phone numbers on Wikivoyage. Worse still, he is getting annoyed that Wikivoyage has started listing actual phone numbers of hotels and has been removing the numbers, replacing those numbers with his numbers or when everything else fails, removing those listings entirely. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. I suppose, then, the truly strange thing about this spammer is his persistence? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Indeed. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 08:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
 * It seems that today our dear friend has given us his company name? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:32, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
 * It looks like his latest stunt is to add legitimate hotels, but insert his own number in the phone number field. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I feel some system should be made to stop the illegal and wrongfull editing. sandy

 * Hi Sandy, we prefer to keep the Wiki as open as possible, the whole idea is that anyone can edit a page... unfortunately sometimes people abuse the site, but we've got enough regular users around who can pretty quickly revert any unwanted edits, so I don't think we're near a point of having to protect the page yet. The anonymous editors who are trying to add weird things here will probably get bored pretty soon anyway, they usually do! Thanks! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 14:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Bad press
Interesting article on the current controversy in Mandarmani. Stay out of the sea, travelers! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

My recent experience at Sana Beach resort Mandarmani
I Visited Mandarmoni with my friends on the 12th of April,2008. Sana Beach resort came highly recommended, how ever we had a frightful experience of getting beaten up by the Resort staff as they did like us complaining about their attitude and service.I feel sad that the owners/promoters of the Resort have built such a fine place but has kept hoodlums to run and manage.

 * Beaten up, huh? Given the relentless touting on this article, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't devote this article to simply dissuading anyone from ever going here. If Wikivoyage experience is anything to go by, this whole beach seems a den of thieves!  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Phone # spamming & article protection
Dear friends, Today (16/03/2011) I have edited few section and I have done it for the benefit of tourists only. I undertake that the edited portion is 100% correct as of now. Thanks. Sourav

I've protected this article again for another month... I hate protecting articles, but the reverts aren't happening fast enough, and the wrong phone#'s are spending as much time on the website as the right ones.

To the phone# changer... BAS! We won't accept travel agent phone #'s for hotels... they MUST be to the hotel direct, and they MUST match the phone # listed on the hotel's official website. Thanks – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:39, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Yeah, point taken. I will mention, though, the fact that the spammer loves this page makes it easier to catch when he hits other pages. But then again I think I've already watchlisted all his faves though... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:58, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

 * I love this article. Wikivoyage wouldn't be the same without the Mandarmani phone spammers. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:10, 25 December 2008 (EST)

 * a new spam. In the hotel listing "Mandarmoni Beach Resort" entry was pointing back to Debraj Resort which was also in the listing and the phone number also pointing back to DebrajResort. I have deleted the "Mandarmoni Beach Resort" entry. Cacahuate and Peter please verify. 23.09, 13 March 2009 {EST}

Since this remains a daily nuisance, just a few tips for janitorial work: Thanks! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:08, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
 * 1) Revert all phone number changes unless it's absolutely clearly done by a reliable contributor;
 * 2) Make sure to hard revert bad changes by multiple contributors;
 * 3) Revert any and all additions whatsoever of the so called and oft-SCREAMED Shantiniketan Hotel of ill repute.

Protection revisited

 * Is there any reason not to indefinitely protect this article against edits by anonymous users? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 11:50, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

 * The volume of trash has become so enormous recently, that I've finally come around to the idea. I'd like to protect this article, as well as Shankarpur, Digha, and Gorumara National Park for two weeks and see what happens. I'm going ahead and doing that, but if anyone objects (to a length longer than the 24 hour admin discretionary period) at Project:Protected pages, I'll be happy to revert the protection. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:50, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

 * I'm fine with the protection, but per policy please list these pages at Project:Protected pages so that they have the proper visibility. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:55, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

 * O ye of little faith ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:02, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

 * I'm OK with the protection (and had I seen the above note earlier, I would have been bolder with reverting all those telephone number changes), but is there a way that a note directing good will anon users to discussion pages could be added to editing window? Two weeks is quite a long time and sending away anon users empty handed with their possibly useful additions isn't very much in line with the philosophy of a wiki. At least they could see what is going on and why the pages are protected in the first place by being escorted to the talk pages. – (WT-en) Vidimian 20:08, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

 * Done. And I agree—I don't like protections much at all. I'm hoping the two weeks is long enough to get the spammers to move on, so we can get back to business semi-as usual in Southwest Bengal. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:04, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

I left out another forgotten favorite, Bakkhali, and have now added that to the protect list. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:18, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

 * And Sundarbans National Park, which I also forgot. (These guys are remarkable.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:02, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

The protections have expired, and the troublemakers have resumed high volume activity immediately. I have suggested we try blocks to see if that is at all effective. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:33, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

 * Edits to Mandarmani, Shankarpur and Digha are ongoing, multiple times per night, most of which appear to be touts. I'd like to propose that we add a comment to the Sleep sections of these articles indicating that due to touting, any changes to Sleep listings must be justified on the article's talk page first, and that repeated additions without discussion will lead to the user/IP being blocked for periods starting with 24 hours and increasing thereafter.  Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:58, 30 December 2010 (EST)

 * *bump*. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:48, 31 December 2010 (EST)

 * That sounds like a good idea to me. I'd like the hidden comments be placed multiple times through the sections, though (especially at the long ones of Mandarmani, and Digha), so they won't go unnoticed by well-meaning users. – (WT-en) Vidimian 12:11, 31 December 2010 (EST)

 * Now that I am back and have time to pay attention to this, I'm going to try liberal blocks, as mentioned above, as well. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:57, 31 December 2010 (EST)

 * I've added a comment indicating that unjustified changes will be reverted and may lead to the account being blocked. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

Warningbox
I have added a warning box to all the above listed articles, urging travelers not to advance book, owing to the dangers of winding up with a bad phone number. I can't imagine any class of business owners that I would trust less (except perhaps drug dealers?). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:35, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Remove all hotel phone numbers
In light of the warning discussed above, maybe it would be best to simply remove phone numbers from the West Bengal articles under attack altogether? Even if just a few bad phone numbers get through, we would be doing travelers a disservice in having them here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:57, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

 * Hi Peter, yes I agree. Indeed I did take some action in that regard on the 16-17 June having got rather tired of the antics of these clowns, see edits 17-17 June. I removed the numbers in many of the West Bengal article listings after cross referencing to my own list of known tout numbers and email addresses. I am certain I have missed some but having been incited sufficiently by the persistent nature of these activities I dug out quite a few of the mischievous West Bengal listings that ranged rather bizarrely to as far away as north western India. I agree entirely with Peter. If we see a listing that cannot be substantiated to a credible source, such as the providers own website, (and even that must be subjected to close and vigourous scrutiny) or to a clearly credible govt tourism source (and I suspect they get it wrong sometimes) then it should be deleted. Any number put forward by a contributor should be subjected to intense and thorough scrutiny. The no edit note=delete is a good idea but of course some legitimate edits may lack the familiarity with WT to do this or even know that the edit note facility even exists. I know that in the past I have inadvertently reverted a new Bengal tout hijack number to a previous version, only to later realise that was also a Bengal tout hijack number such is the spawning of these listing details. If you review the West Bengal articles now you may note that many are currently lacking either a tel number or an email address, or both. I think I may have even deleted 1 or 2 listings in entirety having concluded they were only 'baits' or 'false flag hotel' listings established just to carry a WB tout number. I have cross referenced some numbers to http://www.westbengaltourism.gov.in/wb/bakkhali_frazerganj_westbengal.html. Possibly this is a credible source. There is also a Bakkhali Freserganj Hoteliers Association, again hard to be certain about them either but they have at least an air of credibility. A read of this pdf that discusses the local issues a few years ago may shed some light onto the general context of hotel and touristic operations in that area [www.wbsczma.gov.in/applications/GO/download_file.php?l_id=42 Government of West Bengal-Department of Environment-Violation of coastal regulation zone norms by the hotels in Mondarmoni and Sundarban areas], and they are the legit end of the business. -- (WT-en) felix 05:26, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

These appear to match their URLs and the listings current on 22 June 2011 and at that time the listings below do not appear to have any tel number conflicts or to be listed with more than one provider:

 * Priya Jeet phone="+91 98 3003 5839 +91 33 2481-9359" url="http://resortpriyajeet.com/
 * Mandermoni 9830035839 / 9333099512/ 9831515514, KOLKATA BOOKING: 68/39, More Avenue, Kolkata- 40, 9331257305/ 9330077537/ 03324819359, Website: www.resortpriyajeet.c

 * Tarangamala Guest House phone="+91 99 3297-7184" url="http://mandarmoniresort.com/
 * Vill. & P.O.- Mandarmoni, Dist.: Purba Medinipur, W.B. Contact: 9932977184, 03220-20025

 * Digante phone="+91 99 0346-8114, +91 90 0760-3406" url="http://digante.com/
 * NB. limited website showing only a Kolkata number and address (slightly dubious but only in the general WB tout context)

 * Debraj Beach Resort phone="+91 98 3021-3935, +91 33 2231-0909" url="http://www.mandarmoni.com/
 * Debraj Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 9A, Lalbazar Street (2nd Fl.Room No.59) Block-A, Kolkata Ph: 033-22310909 Fax: 033-22310910, E-mail: debabrata@mail.com, debrajtravels@yahoo.com, E-mail:contact@debrajresort.com

 * Hotel Dream Land phone="+91 98 0409-0739" url="http://hoteldreamlandgroup.com/mondermoni.htm
 * 77/1B, Park Street, Kolkata, Phone : +91 033 22175584, +91 033 2226-0144 Fax : +91 033 22260144, Mobile : +91 943305584, +91 983176512, E- mail : info@hoteldreamlandgroup.com

 * Ganapat Palace phone="+91 95 93081201,+91 90 51603295,+91 90 5160-3195" url="http://hotelganapatipalace.com/
 * Phone : City Office : 033 - 32531586,033 - 65331586. Hotel : 9593081201,9051603295,9051603195, Email : info@hotelganapatipalace.com

 * Resort Hirak Jayantiphone="+91 97 48899684, +91 98 3187-5353, +91 96 0912-9721, +91 32 2225-7611" url="http://www.resortmandarmoni.com
 * Quick Contacts, (M): 9748899684, (M): 98318 75353, Reach Us; Kharagpur Office: Diamond Tower, Jhapetapur Kharagpur, Ph : 03222 257611, 96091 29721, www. resortmandarmoni.com, City Office (Kolkata): P-103A, 2nd Floor, C. I. T. Road Kolkata-700014, Ph : 033-3242 6435, 033-22841066, 033-22841077, Contact us for Booking: Kolkata (M): 9748899684 / 98318 75353 Email: debjiban.roofers@gmail.com

 * Neel Nirjaney Mandarmani, phone="+91 93 3188-2883" url="http://www.neelnirjaney.com/
 * Mandarmoni, Purba Medinipur, Digha, Contact for Reservation & more Information : +91 9903593610 & +91 9331882883. Additional Contact No. Mobile : +91 9330859481 , +91 9333449848 & +91 9331882883, +91 9432251517.

 * Dream Hut Resort" phone="+91 33 4007-8155, +91 33 4007-8291" email=" travelicon@gmail.com url="http://travelicon.in/dream_hut_images
 * Travel Icon 28, BIPIN BEHARI GANGULY STREET Beside Carey Baptist Church & Opp Hanemann Lab, kolkata, +91(033) 40078155/40078291 alt: Mb: 9831417919 travelicon@gmail.com

 * Sonar Bangla phone="deleted +91 33 4006 0787,deleted +91 33 4006 5773, deleted+91 98360 56456" url="deleted-dead link with redirect

 * deleted +91 33 4006 0787 as it appears on the Contact page for Hotel Dolphin, Digha, Baristar Colony, Old Digha, Dist:: Midnapore (East). http://www.kolahal.com/travel/bengal/d/h/dolphin.htm Phone :: (03220) 266248. Sales Office: Chatterjee International Centre 18th Floor, Suite No. 10, Kolkata, Phone Number:+91 33 4006 0787, +91 33 4006 5773, +91 33 3950 2563,+91 98360 56456 (Palash Tarafder) see http://www.kolahal.com/travel/bengal/d/h/dolphin.htm  http://www.kolahal.com/travel/bengal/mandarmani/mandarmani.html appears to be a local booking aggregator. Website: www.hotelsonarbangla.com appears to be defunct, deleted reservation@hotelsonarbangla.com,ceohotelsonarbangla@gmail.com as hotelsonarbangla.com is dead domain, the gmail address has limited credibility under the prevailing circumstances

 * Rose Valley phone="+91 98 3139 9988" tollfree="1800 102 9922" url="http://rosevalleyresorts.com/resort-mandarmoni.html
 * For phone booking, please call : 9831399988, 9831599988, 9831699888, 9163399988, 9007022890, 1800-102-9922 (Toll Free)

 * The Sana Beach phone="+91 90 0772-5066" phoneextra="+91 98 3147-3785" url="http://thesanabeach.com/ email="leisure_luxury@hotmail.com
 * Sana Beach, Mandarmoni, Purba Midnapore, West Bengal Ph: +91 90077 25066,+91 98314 73785, E-mail: leisure_luxury@hotmail.com Head Office:1A, Brindaban Paul Lane, Shyambazar, Kolkata, +91 33 2530 1030, +91 33 6452 5172

No URL in current listing: these listings appear to have a unique number and no apparent cross references to known WB scam numbers or contacts

 * Hotel Panthatirtha email="et@hotmail.com" phone=+91 90 3830-6460

 * '''Samudra Bilas" listings previously removed

 * Samudra Sakshi Resort"  +91 91 4315-0273

 * Shorelene phone="+91 92 3957-2058

 * Hotel Shinjini 9B, Sidhu Kanahudahar, phone=+91 91 6314-2803

-- (WT-en) felix 05:26, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Mandarmoni?
Correction: The spelling of Mandarmani is not correct this will be MANDARMONI. Pl. correct —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 59.93.175.2 (talk • contribs)

 * This appears to be at least somewhat correct—I get 45.5k en google results for Mandarmoni, 40.9k for Mandarmani. Move? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:30, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

This is also to inform that in the Central Govt. published map name of Mandarmoni is officially written as MANDARBANI

 * Follow our larger cousin? - and whoever wrote the bulk of that guide, obviously has some knowledge of the city. On the other hand, most of the websites linked from our guide, uses Mandarmoni... and then again, the links from the Wikipedia article uses Mandarmani - so this could still go either way, hmmm, tricky stuff --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

 * The official tourist agency West Bengal Tourism uses Mandarmani. So I think we should follow their lead. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:12, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

I, sandipan Biswas - MD has made some changes to give the correct information of The Sana Beach

Editing on 16.03.2011
I have edited some areas of the artical with full responsibility considering the latest situation. Thanks. Sourav

title: Talk:Mandarmani


text:
Talk:Mangalore

GOLD FINCH IS NOT A RESTAURANT.... ITS A HOTEL...

GOLDFINCH HAS TWO RESTAURANTS THAT IS SAN-A-DIGE & BANJARA

Banjara Restaurant is an exclusive upscale family styled restaurant offering fine dining, and authentic Indian cuisine. The name Banjara means satiated stomach in the regional Tulu language. The relaxed environment, with an array of cuisine offers and celebrates the best in Indian, Chinese, Continental and Mediterranean food. Popular for its tongue tingling taste and superior quality food, it's one of the finest haunts for connoisseurs.

On offer is a mouthwatering selection of traditionally cooked Indian dishes with the emphasis being on flavour, along with carefully selected wines and elegant surroundings, all to the highest standard. Banjara restaurant offer Separate Smoking & Non Smoking seating Areas. Since its opening the Banjara Restaurant Bangalore has garnered much public and critical acclaim

SAN-A-DIGE: Seafood Restaurant in Goldfinch Hotel MAngalore Sana-di-ge is one of the finest seafood restaurant in Bangalore serving wide varieties of Coastal Cuisine located in Goldfinch Hotel, Bangalore. Sana-di-ge seafood restaurant is synonymous with seafood lovers in Bangalore. Sana-di-ge is for those coastal cuisine lovers who will not compromise on the authentic taste and seafood quality.

The menu is a seafood lovers dream with serving an eclectic blend of coastal cuisine of India - Goan seafood, Maharashtrian delicacies, marvelous food from Kerala and Mangalorean seafood cooked to perfection. It is this exotic mix that works best for our seafood restaurant. Sana-di-ge is an absolute essential and a must-try for lovers of seafood in Bangalore. —The preceding comment was added by 122.181.15.30 (talk • contribs) on 08:46, 7 February 2011

New official name
Mangalore has been officially renamed to Mangaluru by the Karnataka state. The name Mangalore was named by the Britishers due to difficulty in pronouncing. Now it has been reverted back to its original name. So the name Mangalore has to be changed to Mangaluru wherever possible. —The preceding comment was added by Karalgikarrahul (talk • contribs)

 * Tricky one... Wikivoyage selects the name that is most commonly used by travelers, and even Wikipedia still uses its old name Mangalore. I myself have some experience since I work with an office in this city and it is still referred to as Mangalore --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Also is this any different to Bangalore, still identified by most by its older name? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Karalgikarrahul, thanks for starting this thread. As I just posted on your user talk page, changing the name of the title of a Wikivoyage article is a momentous decision that cannot be done unilaterally if there's any chance it could be controversial; you must await the outcome of this discussion before taking any action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Mangalore


text:
Talk:Manhattan

Tipping for cabs
10-15%? As I remember, ever since I was a kid in the 70s, 15% has been a standard minimum for normal service. I find myself upping that to more like 20% nowadays, as with restaurant tips, but I would really suggest 15% and not 10%. 10% seems stingy to me, and I think that cab drivers will feel the same way.

Michael 06:58, 12 Dec 2007 (EST)

"Must Sees"
In the "see" section, the "must sees" go on way too long. There are a bunch of museums I've never been to on that list. The Alice Austen House Museum is a "must see"? A highlight? I think we can and should pare this section way down. I don't see Grant's Tomb as a must see, either. If we are keeping with the idea of a "must sees"/"highlights" list, not a near-exhaustive list of museums and galleries, I propose the following list:

Landmarks

* Empire State Building * Chrysler Building * Rockefeller Center * Grand Central Terminal * United Nations * Flatiron Building * The Dakota (not a bad building, but a must see only for Beatles fans) * Brooklyn Bridge

Museums and galleries

* American Museum of Natural History * The Cloisters * Cooper-Hewitt (perhaps) * Ellis Island Museum * The Frick Collection (arguably) * Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum * Guggenheim Museum (NOT the SoHo location, the original location) * International Center of Photography (good museum, though not a highlight on the order of the Met, by any means) * Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum * Jewish Museum * Lower East Side Tenement Museum * Madame Tussaud's New York (?) * Metropolitan Museum of Art * El Museo Del Barrio (I've never liked the art I've seen there, but I understand its inclusion in this kind of list) * Museum of American Financial History (never been there, but probably worth listing) * Museum of Jewish Heritage * Museum of Modern Art * Museum of the City of New York * Museum of the Moving Image (maybe) * Museum of Television and Radio (Again, maybe. Whether these museums are highlights depends on an individual's interests.) * National Museum of the American Indian, 1 Bowling Green, ☎ +1 212 514-3700, [1]. Open 10AM to 5PM daily, 10AM to 8PM Thursdays and closed on December 25th. * Pierpont Morgan Library (worthwhile, but questionable as a highlight) * Rose Center for Earth and Space * Studio Museum in Harlem (see comments on El Museo del Barrio) * Whitney Museum of American Art

The inclusion of places outside of Manhattan in this list is untenable, and I will edit them out. I'd love some opinions before I edit out other names of museums. Or should we stop pretending these are highlights and call them simply a long list of museums, major, secondary, and minor? Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Michael, 6:14 AM EDT, Sept 27, 2007

 * Agree with everything you say Michael. There is no sense listing every museum on the Manhattan page - that's what the district pages are for. You could pare the list dropping all your 'perhaps' and 'maybes' but keeping a broad neighborhood representation (The Studio Museum in Harlem would stay for that reason). Also, note that the Guggenheim in Soho closed down a long time ago. I don't know if it is in the Soho pages but, if it is, it should be dropped! --(WT-en) Wandering 14:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Also, any chance that you'll make a login id? I'm not sure if your url is fixed and I'd like to discuss some ideas for reorganizing the entire New York City pages with you. I think they're a mess! If you don't want to make a log-in id, perhaps we could do this on my user talk page? Let me know if you're willing. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:32, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree with cutting back on the "must sees". I also wanted to clear something up... is the list just the names of the "must sees" because the "National Museum of the American Indian" is a see listing with see tags including the address, hours and whatnot. I didn't want to go in there and take it out without understanding the purpose of the list first. As I understand it, the list is just name highlights and that actual listings are found in the neighborhood pages. (WT-en) Carson 17:51, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree with you, Carson, but I'd like to see if a consensus can be reached. Michael 04:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Chinatown & Little Italy
I'm not New York savvy enough to know which district to slot Chinatown entries into, so can someone add this to the right district? It is an 'Eat' entry. (WT-en) Hypatia 09:38, 4 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * Nyonya, 194 Grand Street. ph 212-334-3669. This Malaysian restaurant serves tasty food in generous portions, although stay away if you're on a diet forbidding salty and fatty foods! It is relatively busy, and you may have to wait ten minutes for a table even on weeknights. Appetizers $5-$7, entrees $5-$20.

From what I can tell, Nyonya has several locations in New York, including one in Brooklyn. And people should definitely try the 'roti' that they serve at Nyonya. (WT-en) Carrot 11:36, 10 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Where DO we put Chinatown, Little Italy and NoLita? Should they be in one or more of the existing district articles or does there need to be a new article, esp for Chinatown? I prefer to err on the side of fewer rather than more articles so I'm holding off. (WT-en) Nurg 02:10, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I would think that chinatown chinatown deserves its own district page as it is a common destination for tourists, and provides (in my opinion) some of the best food in the city, and the places to find it are not always intuitive without a lot of trial and error. It is also home to the discount chinatown busses which ferry people to and from other east coast cities. (WT-en) gus 23:05, 21 Oct 2005 (EEST)

I started a page for Chinatown. Please help edit it! It's at New York (city)/Chinatown.

Michael 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Subsubdistricts
NYC is currently the only destination in Wikivoyage which has subsubdistricts like New York (city)/Manhattan/Greenwich Village, which I think is unnecessarily verbose — it's not like there are other Greenwich Villages in Queens or the Bronx. I'd suggest chopping out the /Manhattan/ in the middle. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:37, 19 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * Unless there are complaints Real Soon Now I'll do the shift. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:41, 14 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * Third warning. Lacking objections I'll shift by the end of today. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:57, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * I object, but just because I want to think about it before you do it. I think I would prefer to see something like: make New York (city) into a region; make each borough a huge city; make districts in each borough districts. --(WT-en) Evan 22:05, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * I've been thinking about it for 4 months, but as I no longer live in NYC it's not that high in my priority queue -- quite frankly the whole article is a disgraceful mess anyway, esp. given that it's one of the most popular entry points for Wikivoyage.

 * Anyway, I don't think the structure you propose is warranted, Tokyo has three times the population and manages fine as an ordinary "huge city". I'll grant that New York/Manhattan can continue to live as a region page of sorts, but its districts should be just New York/Whatever.  The second level adds no value.  I also think that, for the tourist, the other boroughs don't contain so many places of interest that they need to be districted.

Come on, let's get some more opinions on this...! One more counterprecedent: Tokyo's huge Minato district has subdistricts like Tokyo/Odaiba and Tokyo/Shiodome, but they're not under Tokyo/Minato/*. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:19, 19 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * I raised this issue of subsubdistricts last October (2004) over on the main New York (city) Talk page.... Nobody replied at that stage, so assumed we'd carry on as established. That said, it does slightly bother me that New York has developed a two-stage hierarchy for articles.... Something that other mega-cities and major tourist destinations don't have - both Tokyo and London have been cited in this respect.... I appreciate Evan's arguments and it probably doesn't matter greatly anyway (as long as travellers arrive on the right article when they're looking....), but it might be best for the sake of consistency to implement a change back to a simpler hierarchy (without the intermediate borough headers in article titles) sooner rather than later.... Just my 2 cents worth..... (WT-en) Pjamescowie 03:05, 19 Apr 2005 (EDT)

New York (city) vs New York City
And while I'm at it, New York City should be "New York City", not the current ugly "New York (city)". (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:13, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * No, it shouldn't. "New York" is the most common name for the city. New York City is not an official or even common name for the place. "New York" is also the most common name for the state; New York State is rarely used. We use disambiguators to disambiguate the two places. Also, if you're not happy about the state of this page, you may be interested to know that this site is a wiki and you (yes, you!) can edit any page. Just click the "edit" tab, change what you want, and hit "save page". There's more info on Project:how to edit a page. --(WT-en) Evan 22:23, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * "New York City" gets 20 million hits on Google, including New York City's official tourism website (quote: "New York City's Official Tourism Website"), the New York City government portal (quote: "Welcome to the official New York City Web site") and, yes, even Wikipedia. How much more common or official can you get?  (Yes, "City of New York" is the official name, but it gets a mere 704k hits.)

 * FYI, this has been extensively debated on Wikipedia, so take a look over there before rehashing the same old arguments here. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:51, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * → Talk:New_York_City

District summary info
Re the info currently under "Orientation". Should we break it up and move to beside the relevant bullet under "Districts"? Nurg 26 Apr 2005

 * Yes, I believe we should - and I've started to do so already.... (WT-en) Pjamescowie 05:23, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

"Central Business District"?
I've lived in Manhattan for most of my 40 years on this planet and have never heard of the Financial District being called the "Central Business District," and for a good reason: It's not central! It's Downtown! Central would be Midtown, I suppose, but no-one talks about the "city center" in New York. Therefore, I've changed "Central Business District" to "Financial Center." If there's some compelling reason to change it back, someone could always do so.

Michael 03:53, 14 Nov 2005 (EST)

"Eat" section
If we're keeping with the following:

"Recommended places to eat can be found under the various districts of Manhattan, located in the Districts section above."

Then there shouldn't be any restaurants listed here. Anyone who wants to list Spice in an appropriate "district" article should please do so. I've deleted the entry but reproduce it here in case anyone wants to cut and paste it somewhere:

"Spice (http://menupages.com/restaurantdetails.asp?areaid=0&restaurantid=674&neighborhoodid=0&cuisineid=65&home=Y) is a Thai restaurant a couple blocks below Union Square. 60 University Pl at 10th St."

Michael 04:22, 14 Nov 2005 (EST)

"Drink" section
Where is "MK Productions NYC," and why should it be included in the guide for the entire island of Manhattan, instead of text to the effect that "Recommended places to drink can be found under the various districts of Manhattan noted above"? This looks like a promotion for a party narrowly directed at Asians. I am removing the entry on suspicion of it being promotional advertising. Here it is, in case anyone in the Wikivoyage community believes it's worth reinserting:

 * MK Productions NYC, Premier Asian Night Life and Club Parties in NYC sponsored by Bud Light. Weekly parties.  Over 5 years running.

Michael 01:24, 6 Nov 2006 (EDT)

Parks
I just cut and pasted the entries on parks from the "New York (city)" entry to the Manhattan page, with some further editing. The problem is that I don't think that the number of park descriptions conforms to the introductory remark that "Following is a selection of the higlights / `must sees' - the remainder will be found within the articles for the various Manhattan districts and neighbourhoods." If any of you would like to remove some or all of these sections about specific parks from the Manhattan page and put them in neighborhood pages, by all means do so. I think that we would probably want to keep the most important parks here, and I'd nominate Central, Fort Tryon, Riverside, Battery, Hudson River, Washington Square, Union Square, and Bryant Park. Perhaps we should discuss which parks constitute "must sees"?

Michael 03:28, 17 Jan 2006 (EDT)

Map
I have build an initial map on request from User:(WT-en) Flip666. The current raster version that is displayed in the page is in jpg format as I am traveling and do not have the tools available to reduce a png to an acceptable size; will replace it with a png version in a week or so. If anyone has a lot of time on their hands and would like to add some of the missing street names to the svg version, that will definitely be appreciated. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"Do" Section
I'm concerned about the listing of TimeLineTouring under "Do." I'm looking at their website, and it looks legit, but is this an appropriate place to promote a $38 tour, even if it's well worth it? Would this entry be better placed in the Lower East Side article? Note that Big Apple Greeters don't charge a dime, and that the other suggestions that would cost anything are much more general than a specific commercial entry. So I'm removing the entry for now and placing it below on this page. By the way, what is "Literary New York"? I'm a New Yorker and have know idea what "Check out Literary New York" means.

 * Take

Michael 11:06, 1 Sep 2007 (UTC)

"Sleep" Section
Someone has to clean up or remove the promotional language that is suffusing the Sleep section. I don't have the energy right now, but I'm tempted to just delete the whole section and put it here temporarily. Please help. Thank you!

Michael 11:21, 1 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Second thought:

Is there any reason to list hotels on this page at all? I'm not sure. I can understand from the standpoint of a traveler, it's nice in theory to have a convenient list, but the result is to have duplication between here and the "district" pages, begging the question of what makes a hotel notable enough to be in both places and making it harder and more time-consuming to deal with the problem of hotels putting up their own entries, complete with promotional language. I think that the amount of promotional language and advertising on Wikivoyage as a whole risks making this site unreliable and, therefore, pretty useless for the traveler. I propose that we delete all hotel entries from this page and either list them only on district pages, or do something else that I think would be better but more time-consuming: Create a separate page for hotels in Manhattan only, linked to from the Manhattan and district pages as appropriate, with every entry listed by price category and neighborhood. Of course there would have to be people inspired enough and with enough free time to get such a project started.

Michael 02:57, 6 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhoods/Districts
I'm moving this from the New York page and keeping it here as a placeholder for further editing in the Manhattan article (note that I don't agree with everything here, but it's good material to use):

 * Financial District Lower Manhattan below Chambers Street. Long the center of the American economy, the Financial District is full of impressive turn-of-the-century buildings and is a hive of activity during the day. The New York Stock Exchange, The World Trade Center site, and the Statue of Liberty are some of the key attractions.

 * Chinatown and Little Italy Centered around Mott Street. This is the largest immigrant enclave in the United States, and it is still growing. Restaurants and groceries from all parts of Asia, and the area still retains a authentic Hong Kong flavor though the immigrants are now from mainland China, Vietnam, and other parts of Asia. It's also a bargain center for shoppers, and haggling is de rigueur, especially on Canal Street.   Mulberry Street north of Canal Street is the center of Little Italy. Though not much of Italy is left there, lunch in Chinatown followed by coffee and dessert in Little Italy is a time-honored tourist tradition!

 * Lower East Side South of Houston, East of Bowery, North of Canal.  Formerly the center for Jewish life in New York, the Lower East Side fell into disrepair in the middle of the 20th century, only to be rejuvenated by the Hispanic community (visitors may hear the neighborhood referred to as 'Loisaida').  It is increasingly becoming a trendy nightspot, with hipsters living cheek-by-jowl with aging Puerto Rican immigrants.  Unlikely though it may seem during the day time, at night the LES is filled with gourmands and partygoers.

 * SoHo South of Houston, West of Centre, East of West Street.  The ultimate urban gentrification story, SoHo was a rundown industrial area until the 1960s, when artists began inhabiting its spacious and then-cheap lofts.  After the artists came the galleries, then the celebrities, then the shoppers, and now the visitors.  Filled with gorgeous cast-iron architecture (Greene Street especially), SoHo is a great shopping and dining destination, even if many of the artists have moved on.

 * Greenwich Village South of 14th, West of Broadway, North of Houston. One of New York's most famous neighborhoods (along with Harlem), Greenwich Village (also known as the West Village or just the Village) has maintained its charming bohemian character despite becoming incredibly expensive.  Home to New York University and countless twenty-somethings, the Village is also popular with families.  Its crooked and narrow streets are full of beautiful brownstones, great stores, and fabulous restaurants. The crooked streets are a result of the fact that the area developed before the City's grid system was instituted in the early 1800s.

 * Meatpacking District A part of the "West Village". Its boundaries run from 16 street and 8th avenue on the north-east corner (below lower Chelsea), going down to Gansevoort street which is where streets become irregular. As the name implies, this area was dominated by heavy industry, including Poultry. Located on the far northwest of the Greenwich Village, "Meatpacking" has become the neighborhood people love to hate, as it is full of trendy restaurants, upscale shopping, and suburbanites in for a good time. The former warehouses are now home to exclusive clubs and lounges that make it a magnet for celebrities. It is very expensive to live in this area, and it has somewhat of a faster pace than its neighbors, SoHo and the Village, due to the better flow of motorized traffic.

 * East Village South of 14th, East of Broadway, North of Houston. The East Village is one of the most infamous and historical neighborhoods in the world, giving birth to everything from advanced education, organized activism, and experimental theater, to the Beat generation, Folk music and Punk Rock. The East Village is now popular with college students and suburban teenagers who patron the area's hip bars and nightclubs each weekend.  Despite that, it's still a great community neighborhood, with many delicious restaurants from dozens of cultures, vintage boutiques, off-beat novelty stores, and art galleries.  St. Marks Place, The Bowery, and Astor Place are the most visited streets.  Tompkins Square Park, formerly a homeless shantytown, is charming.

 * Gramercy/Flatiron/Union Square North of 14th, South of 34th, East of Broadway. Centered around three parks—Union Square, Gramercy, and Madison Square—this area is full of lovely little pockets.  Park Avenue South has become a restaurant hotspot, while Irving Place maintains its quiet and charming atmosphere.  Third Avenue is popular with the bar crowds.

 * Chelsea North of 14th, South of 34th, West of Broadway. The city's gallery scene has left SoHo for Chelsea and is now centered around 10th Avenue in the 20s.  While Chelsea has gone upscale in recent years, it retains its vibrant gay scene, and boasts many great restaurants.

 * Murray Hill North of 34th, South of 42nd, East of Madison. Probably the quietest neighborhood in all of Manhattan, Murray Hill has many lovely townhouses inhabited by Midtown office types and UN diplomats.  Not a whole lot happens in Murray Hill, which is just how its residents want it.

 * Midtown North of 34, East of 8th, West of Madison, South of 59th. Midtown is probably the only area of Manhattan that cannot be said to be residential.  It is full of offices, theaters (Times Square is here, after all), and shopping, and the real estate is so expensive that only corporations or people with pied-a-terres can live here.  That said, an increasing number of condos are popping up in the area, though it's too soon to tell how that will impact its character.

 * Hell's Kitchen North of 34th, South of 59th, West of 8th. Though real estate brokers tried to change the name of the neighborhood to 'Clinton,' New Yorkers have wisely stuck with the more appealing Hell's Kitchen.  A fairly derelict area until recently, Hell's Kitchen is undergoing major gentrification, and has numerous restaurants and nightspots on 8th and 9th Avenues.

 * Upper West Side North of 59th, South of 110th, West of Central Park. Home to countless registered Democrats and baby strollers, the Upper West Side is packed with gorgeous brownstones and magnificent pre-War apartment houses.  If you are a regular reader of the New York Times or have ever made a reference to Visconti in casual conversation, the Upper West Side is for you.

 * Upper East Side North of 59th, South of 96th, East of Central Park. This is the ritziest neighborhood in New York, where all of blue-blooded high society (as well as wealthy upstarts: P.Diddy lives here) calls home.  The buildings are beautiful, the stores are expensive, and kids are away at Choate and Andover.

 * Manhattan Valley North of 96th, South of 110th, and bounded by Central Park on the East and Broadway on the West. Often clubbed with the Upper West Side.

 * Bloomingdale North of 96th and South of 110th, and bounded by Broadway on the East and Riverside Park on the West. The stretch between 96th and 106th had been fairly quiet until recently, when real estate brokers began pouncing on it. Often clubbed with the Upper West Side.

 * Morningside Heights North of 110th, South of 125th, West of Morningside Park. Home to Columbia University and several other schools, Morningside Heights has a distinctly shabby genteel intellectual atmosphere.

 * East Harlem/El Barrio North of 96th, South of 125th, East of 5th Avenue. A jarring contrast from the patrician Upper East Side to the south, East Harlem is a major center of Hispanic culture in New York, and is full of great Latin American restaurants.  Like Harlem proper, it is increasingly becoming populated by wealthier types on the lookout for the next big real estate deal.

 * Harlem North of Central Park, East of Morningside Park, West of Fifth, South of 145th. The center of black cultural life for most of the twentieth century, Harlem is a vibrant and energetic neighborhood that has become popular with West African immigrants in recent years, resulting in a variety of good and inexpensive restaurants.  The beautiful brownstones of Harlem have become popular with real estate investors.

Michael 02:29 Sept 06, 2007 (UTC)

Stay Safe
Why are Harlem and Alphabet City singled out as places not to "wander" at night? I disagree with these remarks, which I would tend to consider fear-mongering and not based on a dispassionate appraisal of current conditions. I'd suggest: "Know or at least look like you know where you're going, and keep your wits about yourself by being aware of what's happening around you on the street, where the open shops are, etc." Alphabet City is NOT dangerous nowadays, and is in fact a huge night-life destination. Harlem is a huge neighborhood (actually, more than one), and a complete listing of conditions on every side street at every time of day or night is beyond the scope of this article, but it is certainly reasonable to walk the streets of Harlem at night as long as you keep your wits about yourself. I will await replies before deciding whether to edit the Stay Safe section.

Michael 03:06 Sept 06, 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael, while suggesting that one avoids walking around Alphabet City at night is a joke, I think a warning for Harlem (and Washington Heights) is in order. I agree that 'avoid walking around' is extreme and a 'keep your wits' suggestion is better, but some sort of warning should be there. There are a few hostels on 126th and around Lenox and 128th and the area between the subway and the hostels is deserted at night. The area between 110th and 116th and west of Lenox is getting gentrified (Harry Houdini lived there) but, with all the construction around, is deserted at night and there are still quite a few boarded up buildings. Thanks for taking the New York pages in hand. You may want to consider creating a userid so that you have your own stamp on wikivoyage!--(WT-en) Wandering 09:01, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Districts Revisited
It seems to me that 19 districts in Manhattan is overkill. Agreed that these are distinct neighborhoods, and that New Yorkers consider them distinct, but, from the point of view of a tourist, it may make more sense to simplify the borough into fewer districts. My proposal is: 1. Lower Manhattan: The entire area below 14th Street. 2. Mid-town Manhattan: The area between 14th Street and 59th Street. Technically Murray Hill, Chelsea, Grammercy, etc. are not in this neighborhood but we could throw them in. Alternatively, we could break midtown into Midtown (34th to 59th); and Chelsea, Grammercy and Flatiron. 3. Upper East Side: But we'll stretch this to 110th east of Central Park. 4. Upper West Side and Morningside Heights. 5. Central Park. 6. Harlem and Upper Manhattan. This would include Spanish Harlem and the area around Marcus Garvey Park. 110th and above on the East Side and 125th and above on the West.

I think it is a mess the way it is now. Comments?--(WT-en) Wandering 10:09, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Sounds like a very good idea to me. You could just make the neighborhood articles redirects and then describe the various neighborhoods in the new district articles' understand sections. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:11, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

 * I see the reason for doing this and have no real objection to it, although I prefer to keep Midtown as 34-59 St., for the sake of not confusing visitors. I'm also not convinced on considering the Upper East Side to go up to 110th St. Traditionally, everything above 96th St. has been considered East Harlem/Spanish Harlem. If anything, I've been wondering whether the Harlem article should be broken into "East Harlem" and "Central and West Harlem," which would go counter to your new proposal. But realistically, for visitors, it does make sense to call anything above a certain point "Upper Manhattan." --Michael 20:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

 * While it goes against the grain to include Morningside Heights in the UWS (what about Bloomingdale and Manhattan Valley) or the area from 96th to 110th on the East Side in UES, or clubbing all of Harlem into one thing, the reality is that there is not a whole lot to say about each distinct area in Manhattan. Spanish Harlem, for example, would have some stuff on the row houses, perhaps a description of Marcus Garvey Park, but other than that there is not much else there for a tourist. There are few restaurants or hotels, for example, in most of the area above 110th (including Morningside Heights which, at least, has a lot of tourism oriented sites). Some judicious combining is definitely in order. In the specific case of the UES and the area upto a 110th, it makes sense because there are a couple of museums up there (and the UES is the museum center of Manhattan), the area around Mt. Sinai and Madison have been becoming gentrified (though the Park Ave. area above 97th will never be gentrified thanks to the many projects and Metro North), etc. etc. Still, most of the area is qualitatively different from the UES, so we could club it into Harlem. So, we get:

1. Upper West Side (including Morningside Heights). I've already merged MH into UWS. 2. UES. (Below 96th but I'd include mention of el museo del barrio, museum of the city of new york, etc. just because they're all on Fifth). 3. Harlem (Central Harlem, East Harlem, Manhattanville, Hamilton Heights) and Washington Heights. 4. Inwood and Fort Tryon Park. 5. Central Park. South of Central Park is more complicated because the district names are so recognizable. Perhaps we'll stick with: 1. Soho 2. Chelsea 3. Midtown South (Grammercy, Flatiron, Murray Hill, etc. etc.) East of Chelsea, north of 14th, south of 34th. 4. The Village (Greenwich, West, East) 5. Downtown. Everything south of Canal (excluding Chinatown but including Tribeca). 6. Chinatown, Little Italy, and the LES (which could also be included in the village since the east village is technically part of LES). Still have eleven districts. A tad too many IMHO, but better than 19! --(WT-en) Wandering 11:56, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
 * This sounds pretty reasonable, Wandering. I have two comments and two quibbles. The comments:

1. I grew up in the West 90s and always considered the Upper West Side to go from 59th St. to 125th St., west of Central Park and Morningside Park. 2. Inwood can be included with Washington Heights and Harlem as "Upper Manhattan."

The quibbles: 1. If you're going to include museums in the 100s in the Upper East Side page, it makes sense to redefine the meaning of "Upper East Side" to fit. 2. I strongly suggest not including the East Village as part of "The Village" in any way, because that just further confuses the issue that the East Village is east of the Village and not an eastern part of The Village. If it's included in that section, I propose that the section be "Greenwich Village and the East Village." I've always considered "Greenwich Village" synonymous with "West Village," though that could be partly because of the confusion of the term "East Village." --Michael 02:20, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Sounds good to me. The UWS page now includes Morningside Heights (though, as a 20 year resident of MH, most of us think of MH as separate from UWS - I guess you denizens of the Upper West Side aspire to be part of Morningside Heights - just kidding! ). About the East Village, I agree that it is confusing. I grew up in what is now the West Village and there was no real East Village back then, or a very tiny one anyway with a larger generic Lower East Side east of Tompkins Square Park. Most tourists, however, seem to see the Village as an entity divided into West and East, with the West Village and Greenwich Village being the same thing, and I'm not sure what's the best way to deal with this issue. It is also the case that the listings will be huge in both the East and West Villages and my preference would be to break them up anyway. That would give us 12 districts, unless we combine the Harlem and the Inwood districts into one Upper Manhattan district (which, coming to think of it, makes sense since the listings are not going to be huge in either). So we would get one Upper Manhattan district, one Greenwich Village district, and one East Village and Lower East Side district. Does that make sense? BTW, I really appreciate this exchange and your thoughts (and your edits). You should consider creating an identity on wikivoyage.--(WT-en) Wandering 10:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, this is making sense to me. At some point, it may make sense to revisit the question of whether to redivide the East Village from the Lower East Side entry, depending on just how long the article gets, but I agree with your thinking completely.

--Michael 04:28, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just want to rerevisit this issue...We have 16 Manhattan districts now. So if I'm understanding this discussion correctly (and laying aside the issue of combining East Village and Lower East Side for the moment), then TriBeCa should be merged with Lower Manhattan, and Chinatown should be merged with Lower East Side. Right? Also, would it make sense to merge Roosevelt Island with Upper East Side? That would leave us with 13 Manhattan districts, plus the four other NYC islands, coming to a grand total of 17 NYC districts. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 17:09, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

 * The Queens article has seven sub-districts, although five are red-links. If Manhattan has 13 districts, it's hard to imagine Brooklyn getting at least half that number and the Bronx getting maybe three. I'm an advocate of starting with a very small number of districts - like five - and splitting only when the districts get too full. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:45, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Given the relative number of attractions in Manhattan and the Bronx, shorting the latter on districts doesn't seem unreasonable. It's mostly residential, after all.
 * I'd keep Roosevelt Island as a separate district. It's small, but it just doesn't fit with any of its geographical neighbors culturally, economically, historically, or even transit-wise (where it acts more like a part of Queens).  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 19:29, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

 * This might seem weird, given our usual order of things, but would anyone mind if I shuffled the Upper and Lower Manhattan district lists around, so it fits with how you read the map? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:31, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

 * What, you mean like with Upper Manhattan at the top and Lower at the bottom? I wouldn't mind that. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 17:41, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Districts (north to south)
There was some discussion above about shuffling the district lists around so that Uptown was at the top and Downtown was at the bottom. If anyone really wants to do this, here it is:

Uptown / Upper Manhattan
The districts located north of 59th Street are considered part of "Uptown" (note: to go "Uptown" in Manhattan means to "go north"):

Midtown Manhattan
As the name suggests, Midtown Manhattan occupies the approximate middle reach of Manhattan Island, sandwiched between Lower Manhattan (below 14th Street) and Upper Manhattan (above 59th Street / Central Park). Midtown is divided into a number of neighborhoods, often indistinct. (Considerable overlap exists between them!) They are as follows:

Downtown Manhattan
The districts located south of 14th Street are considered part of "Downtown" (note: to go "Downtown" in Manhattan means to "go south"):

On one hand it's nice how it fits how you read the map, but it also puts some really popular tourist districts at the very bottom, which seems a bit weird. I'm on the fence on this one, which is why I didn't just add the regionlist template reading north-to-south to the article myself. (WT-en) Eco84 18:36, 8 February 2010 (EST)
 * Yeah, I don't like how it puts the popular tourist areas at the bottom, just doesn't make much sense to me. I'd rather keep it south to north. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 23:39, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Status
Work that needs be done before we can elevate Manhattan to guide status:

 * A good bunch of the usables are near guide status, and only two articles need to be elevated to usable status to make the main article a guide. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:15, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I ponder what to do with those last two outlines, and I wonder if some merging isn't in order. What if TriBeCa and SoHo were merged into one article (Manhattan/SoHo-TriBeCa)? On their own, they don't seem to be doing all that great, but combined it could make for a pretty killer article. As for Roosevelt Island, there is so little to do there that I wonder if it would work better as a large listing in the Midtown article - treat it more like a large park than a district, since the only real attraction is to take the tram or subway across and get good views of the skyline. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 13:18, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Roosevelt Island sure looks like an attraction to me. Assigning it to a district is problematic, but maybe we can ignore one of our rules here and just put the listing in the main Manhattan article.  As for SoHo/TriBeCa, I'm in favor of anything that makes a killer article.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:13, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I wouldn't be opposed to putting it with the main Manhattan article were it not for the single restaurant listing on the Roosevelt Island page. It's just one listing (and not a particularly good one), but if a user wanted to add others there wouldn't be any place to put them, which is why I'd rather assign it to a district (although now I'm thinking Upper East Side would be better than Midtown). (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:53, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Roosevelt Island's only purpose from a travel standpoint is as a platform for viewing the Manhattan skyline, right? I think it would be fine to give it its own subsection of Manhattan, akin to Washington, D.C.. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:32, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Well, I don't have too strong an opinion either way - putting it in the main Manhattan article works for me. (Heh - I notice Washington D.C. has a Roosevelt Island as well...) (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 16:50, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Roosevelt Island now a section in Do - the article has been redirected as such. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 17:22, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Soho and Tribeca have different history, identity, feel, and location. I would not support combining them into a single article. Instead, more work should be done on the articles. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 06:50, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Agree with Ikan, combining them wouldn't make sense. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I can't speak to the history or feel, but location? They're adjacent.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:53, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Yes they're obviously adjacent, but they have a different feel and character. Instead of the easy solution, merging them, I think we'd make the NY guide a better one if we just improve these articles. They're certainly worthy of a separate page. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:00, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Whether they're adjacent or not depends on definitions. It can be argued that the triangle below Canal Street (=TriBeCa) is formed by Canal, West Broadway, and the Hudson River, and that while Soho extends from around Centre to the River, what could be called the main or typical part of the neighborhood is from Broadway or Lafayette to 6th Av. I don't see a problem with lumping everything up to Church (or, what the heck, Broadway, as we're doing now) into Tribeca, but I would say that's an expansion of the historical dimensions of the triangle. Have a look at this map for an alternate take on where these neighborhoods are: http://www.startherenewyork.com/nyc-maps/downtown-attraction-map.html (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 01:41, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Sorry, I should have said that the districts as we define them are adjacent. If you want to limit the definitions, the excluded areas would have to be moved to other districts.  At any rate, I don't really have a dog in this fight; they just seem awfully small to me.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:32, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Me neither - given the obviously strong opinions here, I'm not going to seriously crusade for a merger of TriBeCa and SoHo. I was just putting it out as a suggestion, given some past successes we've had with mergers on Wikivoyage (San Francisco/Chinatown-North Beach springs to mind here, which is also an example of two seemingly very different neighborhoods near each other). But like I said, given the strong feelings on this matter, I'm backing off. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 11:34, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Just to clarify: I'm not actually arguing for shrinking the definitions of Soho and Tribeca from how they're currently defined on WikiTravel. And there may even be a time to revisit this discussion about the proposed merger. I'm just not ready to support it now and made the arguments that occurred to me as initial reactions. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 01:54, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I think SoHo is good enough to be usable status (it has at least a Get In section and one Eat and Sleep listing and several attractions); can Manhattan be upgraded to guide status yet? (WT-en) Sumone10154 17:54, 17 January 2011 (EST)
 * I agree SoHo is (barely) usable status. See Talk:Manhattan/Theater District for my thoughts on that being a Guide.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:39, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Lead
While I appreciate that "Ground Zero" may be an outdated term, I'm afraid that this change disrupted the rhythm I had going in that clause. The sequence of four sites: "Central Park, Rockefeller Center, the Guggenheim Museum, and Ground Zero" built in number of syllables before resolving to a more satisfying cadence at the end: 3, 6, 7, 3. Now, it goes 3, 6, 7, 6 (and the six sound more like eight due to the pauses between "World and Trade" and between "Trade and Center"), which is a less satisfying ending rhythmically. Is there an alternative wording we could use as a compromise? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Sorry about that! Hmmm, let's see...I think of Times Square as more of a landmark than a neighborhood, so what if we took out the World Trade Center mention, put Times Square (2 syllables) in it's place, and put "Midtown" (or maybe Chinatown?) in place of Times Square? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:54, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
 * That would work metrically... though Times Square is really close to Rockefeller Center and I suspect I was originally aiming for more geographic diversity. =)  Honestly, I think I might rather keep the World Trade Center site in the list than the Guggenheim -- which, while important, isn't quite iconic.  Not sure about another neighborhood; "Midtown" is a little pedestrian and "Chinatown" is not unique to Manhattan (in fact, I'm not sure it's even the most famous Chinatown in New York City).  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:54, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Hmm...okay, what if we cut Times Square out of the neighborhood list and extended "the Upper East Side" to "the Upper and Lower East Sides" (just one more syllable than in the neighborhood list now and definitely an iconic Manhattan neighborhood), then in the sites list replaced "Rockefeller Center" with "the Empire State Building" (since it's further away from Times Square), replaced "the Guggenheim Museum" with "the World Trade Center" and put in Times Square at the end? So it would be "Central Park, the Empire State Building, the World Trade Center, and Times Square" (3, 7, 5, 3). (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 14:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I really like Rockefeller Plaza, but I did recently note the glaring absence of the Empire State Building from the lede (except in the form of "concrete canyons"). Let me sleep on it.  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:42, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

 * It's been a loooooong time since we touched on this, but I tried a new set today: Central Park, Rockefeller Center, the Empire State Building, and the Met. Seeing as there isn't a worthy replacement for Times Square in the neighborhood list, "the Met" was the only other 2/3-syllable iconic landmark term I could think of (and cadence-wise, it's far more satisfying than "World Trade Center site"). And now we finally have the Empire State Building in there! PerryPlanet (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Not bad, though I wonder if "the Met" is too much of a New York-ism for out-of-towners. Some might first think of this guy.  =)  LtPowers (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I'll take that risk. Besides, this whole thing got started because "Ground Zero" wasn't enough of a New York-ism. ;) PerryPlanet (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 * What about "the Rockettes"? Or is Radio City too close to Rockefeller Center?  LtPowers (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, there's that (Radio City is practically in Rockefeller Center), plus personally I don't really associate the Rockettes with Manhattan. They play in Manhattan, yes, but I don't really think of them as representing Manhattan, whereas the term "the Met" is something I immediately identify as a New York thing. Like I hear that and my mind immediately goes to "Ah, New York!" But I grant this is getting pretty heavily into personal opinion.
 * I guess there's the MoMA, though I don't know if that's iconic enough to qualify. If we're willing to get a little silly, we could say "the Knicks", though I don't know if they've been playing well enough to earn that. :) PerryPlanet (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Met" has two meanings: Metropolitan Museum, Metropolitan Opera. If you don't mind the ambiguity, that's OK, or you could go with "The Met (in both senses)." Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm aware of that. In fact, there's something about the ambiguity I find strangely appealing (though I may be in the minority on that). It's a commonly used term and when I hear it, I immediately know that - whatever it is - it's a big deal and it's in Manhattan. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK to use an ambiguous reference in the lead, if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Islands
Wards Island and Randalls Island are missing from the map. In which district should they go? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 01:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Not much there but parkland. Treat them like Roosevelt Island (gray on the map, brief write-up under "Do").  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:58, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I think Roosevelt Island sticks out like a sore thumb under "Do." It doesn't deserve this level of highlighting among all the hundreds of things to do in Manhattan. I think it would be better to turn it back into a separate district article. Your opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to consider it as part of Manhattan/Midtown and put a 2nd-order subtitle of "Roosevelt Island" under the "Do" section of that article. Considering it part of Midtown would make more sense to me than considering it part of the Upper East Side, because the Tram runs from 59 St. and the F train also comes in essentially from Midtown (63rd St., which is de facto Midtown to me, and before that, 57 St., etc.), but the residential section is across from the Upper East Side, so pick 'em. My main point is that I don't think it deserves to monopolize the "Do" section at this level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When I wanted to write something about the island I looked for it on the map, couldn't find it (I mean I found it easily, but it wasn't coloured, so didn't know where to go next), then did ctrl+f and found under Do, really strange. I think it should become part of another district, don't know NY well enough to say which. Jjtk (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's politically part of Manhattan, not Queens, so the only two logical options are Manhattan/Midtown or Manhattan/Upper East Side - the two neighborhoods of Manhattan that it's across the river from. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, besides expanding the Do section so that Roosevelt Island doesn't stick out like a sore thumb (which would most likely take too long for this), I suppose the logical thing to do is to stick it in Midtown, since that's where you enter it from. And the good news is we do have a precedent for that; we treat Liberty Island, Ellis Island, and Governors Island as attractions to be accessed from Lower Manhattan. Why not the same for Roosevelt and Midtown? PerryPlanet (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On an extra note, if we're moving Roosevelt Island to Midtown, can we at least leave a quick line here in See (say, in Parks and gardens, since the park is the main attraction of Roosevelt Island) with a very brief description and a link to the Midtown article for more info? That way, folks like Jjtk can know where to look. PerryPlanet (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It'll be OK when Roosevelt Island is painted Midtown redish on Manhattan map . Visible part of Governor's Island should be violet and Randall's Island should be Harlem and Upper Manhattan green then? Jjtk (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I'll wait for the Roosevelt Island text to be moved, then change the map. PerryPlanet (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed on the map colors. I'll move the text.Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Map changed. Good work, team! Hands in! And break! PerryPlanet (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Do" section
It probably shouldn't be totally blank, as "See," "Buy," etc. are not. I put in just a bit of an overview. Please edit it if you find it lame. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a start! PerryPlanet (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Shooting for DotM
I can't tell you how pleasing it has been to see the NYC articles (especially the Manhattan ones!) grow and improve over the past few years. Seeing as NYC is one of the world's biggest travel destinations, I definitely see this as putting forward a good front for many new visitors to Wikivoyage. And I'd definitely like to see some recognition for all the hard work people have put into these articles. To that end, I want to get an NYC article to DotM.

Now, seeing as there are still some outlines in the Brooklyn and Queens districts, I think we're sadly still a ways off from getting the NYC article to guide status (and thus, DotM-eligible). But Manhattan is in pretty good shape (maps and nice banners in all the districts!) and already at guide status, and I think it could be a great DotM candidate with just a bit more work. So I wanted to put this out there as a call for action; what should we do to get Manhattan ready before nominating?

For my part, I'd say we need to expand the Do and Eat sections. I'm still trying to figure out how much of the Entertainment info on the main NYC article should be incorporated into the Manhattan article - a lot of it seems a little too detailed for the NYC page. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I think I agree that a lot of the details in "Do" (e.g., how to get discounted Broadway show tickets) might be better placed in the Manhattan (and to a much lesser extent, Brooklyn) guides, with a brief summary left in the New York guide. Some of the district guides need updates, too - for example, I know I need to update the Chinatown guide to add some good restaurants that are either new or just not included yet. Some of them are actually probably classed as being in the Lower East Side and should be added there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Great work, Perry! I would support this for DotM now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Although there's still a little more I'd like to add, namely some stuff in the Eat section on the best neighborhoods for food, and now I'm thinking we really need more big events than just the three parades we have so far (festivals, holidays, that kind of thing... doesn't the Westminster Dog Show happen in Madison Square Garden?). Being a native Manhattanite, you must be savvy to the worthwhile events. ;) PerryPlanet (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes on the dog show. Lemme think about the rest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 * OK, a few random thoughts: The Easter Parade is also famous, and a classic movie centered on it. I believe the NIT is played in Madison Square Garden every year, though that's a relatively minor athletic event for New York. I don't think we want to recommend the Puerto Rican Day Parade, given its track record of women sexually assaulted, etc., but the Columbus Day Parade could be mentioned, and perhaps the Salute to Israel Parade. I don't know if either is particularly colorful, though, as I haven't seen either (I guess it's possible I went to the Salute to Israel parade when I was 13 or so). Street fairs should be mentioned, though most suck. There's the Taste of Chinatown, which I've heard is decent (I've never been), the 9th Av. street fair is famous and still better than an average one, because local eateries put some food out, and there are local events like the Ukrainian fairs that are held on 7th St. between 2nd Av. and Cooper Square as a benefit for St. George's Church, a Ukrainian Catholic church. That fair is fun: There's decent traditional dancing (sometimes with a loud soundtrack), home-made food that's pretty good (not great), and a bunch of stuff for sale. And there are things like the Charlie Parker Festival at Tompkins Sq. Park (and they also used to do a day at Mount Morris Park, I believe, in Harlem - not sure if they still do) and the Howl! Festival that's held at different places on the Lower East Side (roughly, including the East Village, etc.), to celebrate Alan Ginsburg and today's progressive art. There are also outdoor performance series in Central Park and Battery Park. The July 4 fireworks definitely bear mentioning, but I'm really not sure how much of the rest of this merits any space at the borough-wide level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, a general mention of street fairs should be in there, but naming specific ones should probably be done at the district level (unless it's really huge or notable). The Easter Parade, Columbus Day Parade, Salute to Israel Parade, and July 4 sound great. Speaking of holidays, isn't there also a big Christmas tree lighting at Rockefeller Center? Probably really touristy, but I bet that's a huge event. I've also heard the Pride March is a big deal, and I've also heard a lot about the New York Comic Con and Fashion Week. The NYC Marathon might also warrant a mention, even if it isn't specific to Manhattan. (I'm basically just combing through Category:Events in New York City on Wikipedia for likely candidates.) PerryPlanet (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, the Christmas tree lighting at Rockefeller Center is a big event that should be mentioned, and not only the Pride March but the whole Pride Weekend is a really big deal and absolutely should be highlighted. Fashion Week should be mentioned on the same basis that the TriBeCa Film Festival is - a fun event that lasts a few days. The Marathon really is a city-wide event, so I think it's best for that to be highlighted in the New York City guide, rather than here. Another event that needs to be mentioned is Chinese New Year, because for many travelers, the experience of seeing a lion dance and so forth is unique, though I don't remember if they've been shooting off a lot of firecrackers in closed-off streets again since Giuliani left office, or if that's still not happening anymore. I'm not sure about Comic Con - isn't the big one usually in San Diego? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Sounds good on all points. The really big comic con is in San Diego, but I've heard the NYC one is pretty huge too (at least in number of attendees). I don't think it draws in as many notable guests as SDCC, though, so I guess it might not be that worthy of mention. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing gets as many notable guests as the SDCC. =)  That's like saying the American Museum of Natural History isn't worth mentioning because the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History gets more visitors.  LtPowers (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Touché. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, how is it that we've gotten this far without mentioning the Times Square ball drop? Okay, I gotta start making this list. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Easy event for a New Yorker to forget, because we wouldn't be caught dead there. But yeah, it has to be mentioned - with that caveat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, I just completed a sweep through the district pages, taking out any obsolete listings and updating the maps. I think I'm ready to nominate this for DotM, but is there anything else we want to address first? PerryPlanet (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd say go ahead! You've done a heck of a lot of good work, and some other folks have helped out. I'm sure more stuff will be done, given impetus by a nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 * And we are a go! PerryPlanet (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternate names in the lead
I get that you guys want to clarify the county and informal names for Manhattan, I really do. But does that information really have to go into the lead? The lead for Manhattan was one of the very best we had on Wikivoyage - it was exciting, it flowed well, and it really drew you in as a reader. And on a website with so few good leads, I really looked to the Manhattan example as a model of what a good lead can be. But wedging the county and informal names in there really disrupts the nice flow it had going, and that information is - with all due respect - rather dull and encyclopedic. That's not to say it isn't worth putting in the article, but it's really at odds with the tone the old lead was trying to set.

Are we sure this info absolutely has to go into the lead? I want to point out that we already prominently state the names of the counties on New York City. If it has to go in the Manhattan article, can't it be moved down to Districts or Understand, where it would fit the more encyclopedic tone? PerryPlanet (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I like the idea of putting it in "Understand." Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the kind words, PerryPlanet, though every time I re-read it, I fear I overused the word "Manhattan". =)  That said, I agree; especially for a term so rarely used as "New York County" (I can only ever think of Ray Stanz in Ghostbusters: "As a duly designated representative of the City, County, and State of New York..."), wedging it into the lead is both unnecessary and distracting.  LtPowers (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The terms "New York County" and "Manhattan County" (including variations such as "New York (Manhattan) County") get almost 3 and a half million Google results, and the term "New York" very commonly used in maps showing the counties of New York State. In those maps it's axially more common to see the county labeled "New York" then "Manhattan". The term "New York county" is even used prominently by one of the Manhattan government websites. The traveler isn't necessarily going to know that New York County and Manhattan are the same thing (or even that "borough" is the NYC term for "county"). A traveler should be able to look up "New York County", get to this article, and not be confused as to why he's at an article about a bough of some city instead of the county he was looking for.

 * As for overuse of "Manhattan", other terms we could use are "the borough" "the island, and "the county".Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but I just don't see this being a matter of such significance that it requires us butchering the lead over. If "New York County" redirects to Manhattan (which it does), that alone should be able to clue people in to what's going on. And besides, how many people are really going to be searching for a county on a travel guide? A county is a unit of government, not a destination. Typically, when you're doing a search for a county, you're looking for info on government services, not travel info.

 * Like I said, I don't have a problem with this info being in Districts or Understand, but I don't think it fits the lead. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Maybe people in some parts of the US don't refer to counties as destinations much (Northern Virginians do), but (unless I'm missing something) the huge number of pages we have about counties would seem to disprove you're statement that they are not destinations, or would not be looked up. Counties (like cities) are unites of government, but like cities they are also physical places people live in, refer to, and travel go. We and often use counties as sub-regions (e.g Northern Virginia, Philadelphia Region, Metro New York, Long Island, New York City). My main point wasn't that we should necessarily "butcher the lead", I was saying we shouldn't confuse the reader. How to go about not confusing the reader is a different matter. Now that you mention it, the nicknames are probably overkill for the lead, even when separated into their own sentence. I'd guess that they would fit best in "Understand".

 * As for New York County, How would a simple "(also known as New York County)" make the lead not exciting, or not draw the reader in? It's asking too much of the reader to figure out that "New York County" is synonymous with "Manhattan", or to even figure out that "borough" means "county". It's very uncommon to refer to counties as "boroughs" (Only NYC and Alaska do that), and it's extremely rare for a county to be part of a city (instead of the other way around). If we bury "New York County" part in "understand" the reader could very easily miss it and still be confused. The reader isn't going to know why we're sending him to this article unless he already knows that the terms are synonymous; he could guess but he isn't going to know (he might think he got here in error, or something).

 * This isn't a problem specifically affecting Manhattan tough, this effects all five boroughs and we should probably take the same approach on all of them (Brooklyn lists the county name in a far more verbose manner then I suggest). Lastly, does anyone know of a guideline for how to treat alternate names? I'm familiar with the one that says they should be redirects, but I don't know of any that says how they should be treated in the article itself. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for not confusing the reader, but the number of people who both a) search for "New York County" and b) don't recognize "Manhattan" when they see it, has got to be vanishingly small. There are any number of redirects we could create to this article but we can't put them all in the lede.  LtPowers (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to your points, Emmette, yes, we do often use counties as sub-regions, because taking an existing governmental structure like that is often a convenient way to sub-divide a region. But the name of a county is rarely used as the name for a travel destination (how many "Lonely Planet Guide to ____ County" books do you see?). Now, I'm sure that there are some counties who market the name of the county for travel purposes. But I stand by my argument that the number of people searching for the term "New York County" and not "Manhattan" on a travel guide is tiny.
 * How would a simple "(also known as New York County)" make the lead not exciting, or not draw the reader in? Because the way that is written disrupts the flow of the sentence and inserts a rather dull fact in what otherwise had a lively tone. It's the difference between saying "Manhattan is awesome" and "Manhattan (also known as New York County) is awesome."
 * And finally, the Brooklyn article has what I would consider a terribly boring lead, so I wouldn't look to that as an example. The lead should be a place to draw the reader in with a lively description of the place, not a paragraph to dump boring info about population data and official government names. PerryPlanet (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'm convened. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current one wins hands down with me. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The new banner is a nice panorama picture but not so outstanding that I would support a change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The current one is more catchy, keep. Danapit (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Given that we already have a beautiful skyline shot as the New York City banner, I support keeping the current banner mainly for variety's sake. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current Syced (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Division between Harlem and Upper West Side
Hi folks.

User:Ikan Kekek and I have been [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIkan_Kekek&type=revision&diff=2868129&oldid=2868127#Cotton_Club discussing] where to list the famous Cotton Club as well as Dinosaur BBQ. Ikan says -- and he would know! -- that the traditional dividing line between the Upper West Side and Harlem is 125th Street, all the way west to the river. But Dino and the Cotton Club are in a little wedge of the Upper West Side south of 125th but north of St. Clair (129th), and both are strongly associated with Harlem; the former in that they identify their location as Harlem (see http://www.dinosaurbarbque.com/bbq-harlem/: "Situated underneath the Riverside Drive Viaduct at 125th Street in the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan, the Harlem Dinosaur BBQ occupies a two-story brick building next to the Hudson River. The Harlem Dinosaur Bar-B-Que is close to Harlem's famous Cotton Club nightclub.") and the latter due to its former incarnation located on 142nd.

In my opinion, the Cotton Club fits far better into our Harlem article, particularly in its "Jazz" section, even if it's not technically within the traditional boundaries. But I don't want to make unilateral changes like that because I don't know the area personally. So I was hoping to get some additional thoughts.

Of note, our Manhattan/Upper West Side map doesn't include the triangle in question -- though to be fair, neither does the Harlem map.

-- Powers (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 * As you all can see, I definitely have an opinion about this, but I also don't think that one side of a street is that important, and I will go along with any consensus on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

District locator maps
While I appreciate the work that User:ויקיג'אנקי must have put into the Wikipedia-style individual district locator maps just added to each Manhattan district page (as well as the London ones), I personally don't find they add much utility in the context of our Wikivoyage guides, where we already have a detailed district map on the main Manhattan page showing where each district is as well as detailed street maps in each district guide. Additionally, they make the formatting in the lede rather awkward; in a couple of cases, a perfectly suitable lede image was removed to make room for the locator map. But I want to put this to a wider discussion to see what everyone else thinks. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I love locator maps in Wikipedia; I think they're nicely encyclopedic. In a travel guide I'm not a big fan. I think images at the top of our articles should be photographs, with a single map of the current subject of the article for context. Powers (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This is actually a very common feature in many of the Engvoy Wikivoyage articles (and I know this mainly because I have been working for several years on translating many of the most prominent Engvoy articles to Hebvoy). Either way, I created all of these locator maps first and foremost for the Hebrew Wikivoyage articles since I am sure the readers of the Hebrew Wikivoyage find high value in knowing where each one of these areas is actually located within Manhattan + London (even though the locals, like yourself probably, know quite well already where these areas are located). Either way, since this issue seems to not only be about locator maps in the Manhattan articles, but about locator maps in all of the Engvoy articles, I suggest you bring it up in the Travellers' pub. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On EngVoy, locator maps are only a common feature on country level articles. Anyway, I would like to keep this discussion here (and perhaps London) for the time being, because I don't necessarily think locator maps should be kept off all Engvoy city articles; I can see a situation where you might use a locator map as a placeholder for a more detailed district map. I want to discuss this in the context of our Manhattan guides, specifically. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case, please explain why in your opinion there should be an exception only for the New York and London articles. If there is no specific justifiable reason to make an exception only for those two specific cities, then I would still prefer that a broader discussion on this matter would be held in the Travellers' pub. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The specific reason that I've already stated is that Manhattan (as well as London, for that matter) is already extensively mapped in our guides, so I don't believe the locator maps add much utility in that context, especially when they require a bunch of lede images being reduced in size or outright removed to make room for these maps. I don't necessarily think this is true only of the Manhattan and London articles, but since this is where the locator maps have been added, I don't see why we shouldn't discuss them here. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that these locator maps are not necessary, given that there is a clear map on this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata items for dynamic map
Below is the map with all Wikidata items for the districts of Manhattan. This should simplify the work in case we want to change the district set-up in the future. The tool Wikidata Extractor has been used to create the mapshapes.--Renek78 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Accommodation prices
Are these old? In which large dormitory in Manhattan can you ever get a bed for $15/night? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Missing info about Ride-hailing options in Manhattan?
I just finished translating the Manhattan article to the Hebrew Wikivoyage and I noticed that this article here in the English Wikivoyage currently has no mentioning about Ride-hailing options in the "Get around" section. Do you also think that this information should be added to the article? if you think so, and you got enough information about the subject, please help me add it. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Uber and Lyft cost more than New York taxis, in my experience, so I always tell people to try to avoid taking them here. A friend of mine likes Via for late-night trips from Manhattan to Brooklyn, but I've never checked their rates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Boundary between Upper West Side and Harlem, City Hall is not in Chinatown
Everything east of Morningside Park from 110th-123rd Sts and east of Amsterdam between 123rd and 125th Sts is in Harlem, not the Upper West Side. Could someone please edit the neighborhood map accordingly? Chinatown also doesn't include City Hall; you can see more accurate even if still debatable boundaries at Manhattan/Chinatown. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manhattan


text:
Talk:Manhattan/Central Park

Somebody should insert information about the merry-go-round, a rite of passage for many New Yorkers. I would, but I don't remember its name and don't know how to describe its location optimally. -- Michael 11:45, 19 June, 2006 (UTC)

Not the largest park by a long stretch
Central Park is most definitely NOT the largest park in NYC. It's #5.

From http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_faqs/park_faqs.html#g2:

Top Ten Largest Parks:

1. Pelham Bay Park Bronx 2,765 acres 2. Greenbelt, Staten Island 1,778 acres 3. Flushing Meadows/Corona Park, Queens 1,255 acres 4. Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx 1,146 acres 5. Central Park, Manhattan 843 acres 6. Marine Park, Brooklyn 798 acres 7. Bronx Park, Bronx 718 acres 8. Alley Pond Park, Queens 655 acres 9. Franklin D. Roosevelt Boardwalk, South and Midland Beaches, Staten Island 638 acres 10. Forest Park, Queens 544 acres

Sleep??
You aren't supposed to sleep in Central Park. It seems to me that having a "sleep" section in this article opens the door for all kinds of abuses of marketing, because it could be claimed that almost any hotel on the Upper West Side, much of the Upper East Side, and the 50s is "close to Central Park." Central Park is a place to visit, not to sleep close to in order to visit, in this New Yorker's opinion. I would like to delete the "Sleep" section. Michael 00:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Yeah, actually I don't think this should be an article at all. In fact, it is explicitly against our policy to have a city park article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

 * I can see the reason for an exception, though, because Central Park really belongs to no neighborhood, and even has its own police precinct. Technically, Central Park is on the West Side, but New Yorkers treat it as the park in between the East and West Sides. Michael 07:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Forgive me if this sounds silly, but can pitching a tent in Central Park (given it's allowed and safe) count as a way of sleeping there, and thus incorporated into the article? I remember once watching a documentary about a guy who was trying to travel around the world as environmentally sound as possible, which was likely aired on Discovery Channel in early 2000s (though I cannot recall the name of the show). The narrator did pitch a tent in Central Park, saying it was the greenest accommodation possible in New York City.—(WT-en) Vidimian 09:05, 30 January 2010 (EST)

 * Not in general -- except for special events, all NYC parks are closed 1 AM – 6 AM, no entry or use legal during that time. - (WT-en) D. Guillaime 20:25, 30 January 2010 (EST)

 * OK, so I've gone ahead and copied this to New York City, which I think is the right place to note this given there are no exceptions.—(WT-en) Vidimian 21:52, 30 January 2010 (EST)

 * Just popping in three years later to comment that I've had some marvelous daytime snoozes here. --Peter Talk 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic map
Is there a good reason to have two maps in this article? The static map looks so complete, is the dynamic map just clutter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Asking again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at Portugal. I set it up so that only the dynamic map is initially visible, but readers can click to switch among the map types. Should we do the same here? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support the reverse, if anything. The static map looks way better and way more readable to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. It's a good thing I misspoke, then. I'll go ahead and set it up here. Feel free to revert if the outcome isn't as desired. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Tis done now. But in most articles, maps are usually a bit further down. Should I move it to Get in? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! On my browser, the map spans from the beginning of the lede to just past the line under the "See" subheading, so I'm good with it, but I don't know how it looks on a cellphone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Manhattan/Central Park