Talk:Cooper Square

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New York City This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sheikha13. Peer reviewers: Sheikha13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be, in the footnotes I've gone through, anything that defines the boundaries of the Cooper Square area. The claim of it being merely the red area in the map — which is not an official map but just someone's own work — appears to be uncited and possibly an original-research claim. In fact, the Cooper Square Association says here that the area is much larger: "In 1959, Robert Moses had designated a 12-block area from Ninth St. to Delancey St. as the Cooper Square Urban Renewal Area, and hundreds of buildings were to be taken through eminent domain, and slated for demolition in order to build middle-income housing." This needs to be addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are no such thing as "official boundaries" for neighborhoods in New York City, but Cooper Square is not a neighborhood per se but a street name, and by the city's signage is identified as the area in red. You're welcome to check this yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking it myself is original research. And what you're saying doesn't square with what the Cooper Square Association says.

You're the major contributor to this article, and you're behaving in a proprietary fashion by removing tags that another editor believes belong here. You can't do that, because you don't WP:OWN the article. You have to let other editors besides yourself comment and improve the article. You're taking this call for improvement as a personal criticism.

I didn't change the article body. I didn't touch the content. I came to the talk page to alert other editors that I believe the content needs improving. By saying that you won't allow editor to do that, you're putting me in the position of asking for admin intervention. I don't believe any admin will think it's OK for one person closely involved with the article to unilaterally decide another editor cannot put tags calling for improvement. I'm restoring them, and I hope you'll respect that so this doesn't escalate. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created the bulk of this article and who doesn't want his edits questioned removed the tags regarding what appears to be original research and which doesn't agree with what he Cooper Square Association says. (See above.) I haven't touched a word of his edits. He's objecting simply to someone questioning his edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, please extend a bit of good faith, this it not about being questioned, it's about facts, verifiable facts.

First, you made a bold edit (i.e. adding tags on your own, not with a previous discussion behind them), I reverted it. The next step is discussion, NOT your reverting again, so I'm going to, one more time, restore the article to the status quo ante, and the discussion can continue.

Second, I have all the evidence lined up and ready to present that the definition of the street Cooper Square is precisely as I've given it in this article, but there's quite a lot of it, and it would time some time to present, so I'd rather not. If you'd like to AGF that I have the evidence, that's fine, but if you can't bring yourself to do that, I will put it here -- you just let me know here. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding thatWP:BRD Does not really apply for Tags. It is regarding actual article CONTENT and not maintenance tags. Mainly because who would be idiotic to argue over a tag or two that is there to point visiting editors in the right direction to improve the article? If you are going to make claims in an article, then you need to properly cite those claims, within the actual article and not in a chuck in the end of the page, otherwise it is considered Original Research. Just because you have the "facts" in front of you to verify the claims of the article, does not mean that other readers will. MisterShiney ✉ 20:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, actually I was the editor who originated the verbiage you're accusing BYK of taking proprietary measures over, as when I created this article as a stub with, "It is fed directly from the south by Bowery at East Fourth Street which becomes Third Avenue after Saint Mark's Place. The northweast corner borders Saint Mark's Place, while the northwest corner borders Astor Place." This, being the bounds of the street itself, is self-evident. Arguing against such prima facie sourcing as that is akin to asking for citing present to the sky being blue. JesseRafe (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing original research. And there are many times when the sky is white or black or grey. If it's "self-evident" then why does the Cooper Square Association say differently? If those are the boundaries, a source besides you will say so. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll present the evidence later, since you've decided not to accept on good faith that I have it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I guess I shouldn't have piped the link. Read wikipedia policy on over-verification, Wikipedia:BLUE. Oh, and it doesn't take a meteorologist to know that clouds are white, black, or gray, but the sky is never any other color than blue. That's like saying something IS gray when you see a shadow. JesseRafe (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be over-verification if there's no verification at all, which is the case at present. I wouldn't call someone else silly given that fact.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You're arguing that you're not being silly? Because you have a different idea of where a street is than reality? https://maps.google.com/maps?q=cooper%20square&aq=f&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl for pete's sake... JesseRafe (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph do not cite the boundaries of Cooper Square. (The first footnote is a comment, not a source.) I believe under basic WP:VERIFY a cite should be given for the claimed boundaries. The uncited boundaries are not what the Cooper Square Association itself gives. I believe tagging the page to request citations and to caution of original research is necessary, but an editor who wrote the bulk of the article refuses to allow it to be tagged. This is a request for comment over whether it is appropriate to remove the tags without adding citations. Please note it is protocol not to edit the disputed section while an RfC is in progress. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cooper Square Association is a Business Improvement District, and is at liberty to define its area of concern in any way it wishes to. It's not unusual in New York City for neighborhoods to define themselves around a square or other locus. Thus, I could say that I live inthe Madison Square neighborhood, even though I actually live a few blocks away. If the article was about the neighborhood, then the definition of Cooper Square presented would reflect that, but the article is, in fact, explicitly about the street, the square itself, and the definition of the street is precisely as given in the article.

  Please note that it is protocol to wait until after the conclusion of the RfC to edit the article. One does not open a Request for Comments from other editors and then put the article into the state you hope the RfC will result it. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it before the RfC, as time-stamps should show. So let's please not sling arrows about good faith.

You seem to be saying that until you decide to personally give cites for the boundaries, no other editors should be alerted that additional cites are needed. That's WP:OWN.

The bottom line is, why is there such resistance to adding citations? That's the core of what we do — add cited content. I know Cooper Square isn't listed in The Encyclopedia of New York City, but that doesn't mean there's no citable reference to it anywhere. I'm asking for citations; I'm really not sure how that's possibly a big deal.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tenebrae, to quote Johnnie Cochran, if the glove don't fit you should cite all boundaries properly and appropriately and also acquit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of this article, if the article is going define the boundaries (a key piece of information), then reliable sources do need to be given if they can be found. Tenebrae is correct in keeping the citation requests on the page. Which quite frankly would do nothing but improve the article further. It is not appropriate behaviour for an editor to remove tags without addressing the reason for their placement. I notice from an edit summary that Beyond My Ken explained that the reason for his removal was that a month had passed, there is no time limit on Tags. Some tags I have seen have been on articles for months, if not years before.

Beyond My Ken your attitudes towards the removal of the tags, as Tenebrae has already said, would imply that you are taking their additions personally and that you feel you (intentionally or not) that you own the article and are against their additions. If this is about facts as you so adamantly claim, then it shouldnt be too difficult to come up with some verifiable facts from reliable sources. MisterShiney ✉ 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen someone say tags should be discussed before addition, or removed for any reason aside from fixing the issue. In this case, the unsourced information is very important to the article subject, and should be very easy to verify. And since Beyond My Ken claims to have the information, I'm surprised he didn't add it in the month the tag was active.

If a user has the citations, but not the time to add them, the tag should remain. How else would others be aware of the need? The bulk of my edits are made by looking at lists of tagged pages. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We generally have this thing called "reality" that only needs to be cited with a reference when someone decides to unnecessarily push the issue. There was no need to provide references for something that basic and verifiable by an appointment with reality, but I have done so anyway, which ends my connection with this article. Tenebrae, you've done your little bit to make Wikipedia more bureaucratic, more interested in process than in results, and a more unpleasant then it needs to be, so if those were your goals, congratulations, you've succeeded nicely. You managed to behave uncollegially and have refused to extend AGF to a fellow editor when asked to. In short, your editing here has been decidedly dickish, something which I hope isn't true of your work elsewhere on the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, "reality" is something not easily verified by other users, and something for which you admitted earlier to having a reference. This isn't a special case, and I can show you dozens of articles where I was asked to provide a reference for the existance of a thing.

While Tenebrae may not have shown as much good faith as he could've, my comment was specifically about the use of tags. I hope in the future you do not consider it ok to remove tags without fixing the issue. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that Tenebrae has assumed good faith and has not acted outside of policies and guidelines and most certainly does not deserve to be accused of being dickish. Which in itself is a serious personal attack and if I was him I would be making the relevant to the admin's about it. MisterShiney ✉ 20:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argento Surfer, the major argument here is that Tenebrae unilaterally added unmerited tags, and rather than BMK being able to remove them, they then had to be discussed - whereas they were never discussed in the first place before adding them. This is a silly case of a squeaky wheel getting its oil. The article was accurate and informative as it was before, but one single editor simply had an opinion (unfounded on any discernible facts) and added tags just because he or she seemed to "not like it" or something to that effect. But since that editor was the one who squeaked and painted the picture his way, a distorted view of the conflict was presented to other editors here. We have to look at the facts in the article, not merely in Wikipedia's guidelines for their removal, but for their merit in the first place. JesseRafe (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"unilaterally added unmerited tags"... See, I've never seen anyone start a discussion for adding a tag. And until now, I've never seen anyone remove a tag with the explanation "no supporting response" to added tags, especially not after only a month. I routinely clean up articles which have been tagged since 2009 or earlier. I understand the orginal editor thought no ref was necessary, but since he admits he had refs, and they were requested by a fellow editor, I don't understand why he chose to remove the request instead of just adding them in the first place. All of this could've been avoided if his reaction was "Ok, I will add these citations I have" instead of "There are enough footnotes already."

Furthermore, Tenebrae didn't add the tags "just because he or she seemed to "not like it". He clearly indicated the source he found disagreed with the unsourced claim in the article. The proper response would've been to address his concern rather than removing his tags with a dismissive edit summary. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The addition of Maintenance tags is there to IMPROVE the article so that it is the best it can be. They are not intended as a spite against the editors who edit the article further/ They basically say, "this is good, but you could do with a bit of this, that and whatever to improve it further" you can never have enough citations and references within an article to back up what it is saying. They only serve to improve the article. MisterShiney ✉ 20:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argento and Shiney - as you've come here solely due to the request for comment, I must ask you - have either of read the article or had any familiarity with the subject before? This is not a dispute about the tags, but ONE editor taking a personal issue with Cooper Square or with the user Beyond My Ken and being irrationally demanding about it. It is absurd to cite that a certain street is a street. Would you cite that Joseph Stalin is a person? That a theatre is a building? No, that's simply what they are.

Further, the user's supposed "source" was about a different entity entirely - a commercial enterprise. Speaking of enterprise, should I go on to the Star Trek page and demand cites that that is the name of the spaceship, since I found a "source" that is a name of a rental car company instead. ABSURD. JesseRafe (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. My familiarity with the subject is limited to that, because I'd never heard of Cooper Square before. As such, the unsourced boundries of the junction don't seem self-evident to me. Why isn't E 5th street included as part of the junction? From the image, it appears to intersect the other roads in nearly the same point.

And the discussion certainly seems to be about the tags to me. Tenebrae added them. BMK removed them without addressing the concern, despite having the ability to do so. The issue I see isn't about the quality of Tenebrae's source - it's BMK's lack of cooperation. Adding a tag isn't bold, like he claimed above. Removing it and saying local signage in the area makes it an obvious fact to people who have no way to verify the local signage is silly.

Take a look at the Starship Enterprise article. The name of the ship is sourced. And look at this revision, where I added the existance of a statue to an article. It was removed - not tagged, removed - because it was unsourced. Do you know what I did? I added a reference. I did not invite the editor to my home to look at my shelf, where the statue exists. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting it's sourced, I'm just saying it'd be absurd if I used another source to say it's the name of a rental car company in the starship article. I.e. Tenebrae found a completely irrelevant "source" that has nothing to do with the subject and started clamoring for its inclusion.

Why isn't E 5th included? Are you looking at the map? It's not part of the junction, it intersects the square. Bowery is a street (look it up), as are Fourth and Third Avenues. But Bowery never "turns into" 4th or 3rd Aves, as there are two spurs of street both named Cooper Square that act as a segue.

And what a ridiculous idea that one has to be local to verify street signage: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Cooper+Square&ie=UTF-8&ei=6EwBUaieA5CB0AHg14C4CQ&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAA Also, look at the list of all the buildings at the end of the page - which are cited. Look at their addresses. Their addresses are "## Cooper Square", which is "[building number] [name of street]", how can this not be self-evident it's a street? How? JesseRafe (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"should I go on to the Star Trek page and demand cites that that is the name of the spaceship" ... "I'm just saying it'd be absurd if I used another source to say it's the name of a rental car company in the starship article." The name is sourced on that article, so it'd be absurd to dispute it. Here, the boundries were not sourced, and disagreed with a provided source. Questioning the unsourced material isn't absurd.

How do I know E 5th isn't part of the Junction (road)? The definition of "Junction" is broad enough to include any intersection.

I did look at the buildings. I suggest you visit Cooper Union, which lists no street number as an address, and it's detailed location in New York isn't sourced. There are lots of sources about 41 Cooper Square, but that's something else entirely.

You don't need to understand how some editors and readers don't find this self-evident, only that they do. The issue here is BMK's earlier acknowledgement he had sources for the questioned material, but when asked for it, he responded "I'd rather not" That's a direct quote from up the page. He was asked for a source, said he had it, but that he'd rather not provide it. That, not the article, or the obviousness of the fact, or any other part of this long discussion, is the biggest issue here. That, and BMK's complete refusal to discuss it after it became clear the RFC wasn't siding with him. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything you just said. I should also point out that BMK Shows a complete lack of maturity on his part with his persistent blanking of his talk page, personal attacks on other editors (which quite frankly the sort of thing some of the 8 year olds I teach come out with) and demonstrates an unwillingness to work collaboratively with other editors. MisterShiney ✉ 19:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken is 100% right here. This is about the road named Cooper Square, not about the Business Improvement District. For the record, there is no "neighborhood" called Cooper Square, but many such neighborhoods are the result of enterprising and industrious realtors. New York City, London, and other metropolises are [in-]famous for names of neighborhoods arising overnight completely without the knowledge of their inhabitants. As such, the Cooper Square Association's bailiwick is beyond irrelevant. For comparison look at the list of BIDs here: http://www.nycbidassociation.org - It would be absurd to use any of these as criteria for determining where Union Square or Fifth Avenue are. Tenebrae seems to fundamentally misunderstand what this article is about. It is about a street. Not the park enclosed within it, not the entities abutting it, and not the nebulous names of the area it's in, but the street called Cooper Square which cannot be be more self-defined than it is. Any opinion to the contrary is purely overly-bureaucratic rule-mongering and failing to look at the article before the "rule book". JesseRafe (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that needs to be clarified within the article. Besides, this discussion is about the inclusion of maintance tags and not the information in this article. There is nothing beuracratif about making sure Wikipedia policies and guidlines are followed.

On a different note, you Americans are confusing. Who names a group streets surrounding a square the square? Everyone knows its the bit in the middle that's the square and not the streets around it. That's why they have their own names. Oh...and according to the map it's not even a square! MisterShiney ✉ 06:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight, it's the nationality that's confusing. Because we all got together and voted on what to name our streets. And every city is the same, following the same naming conventions. Brilliant. And no one else does that, in their country do they? Definitely not with a street with a name as silly as Piccadilly Circus or anything. Noooo, this is the internet, what's more popular than saying "Americans are monolithic and idiotic, lololololol"?

It's perfectly clear within the article if you read it. Or look at the map. The discussion about the tags is moot and off the point, the tags were never needed as the article was properly cited where it needed to be, BMK was completely correct in his view that the tags distracted from the article and Tenebrae was instigating a whole hullabaloo about nothing. Tenebrae was abusing wikipedia policies and guidelines, not following them. Unfortunately that's the kind of behavior that seems to get rewarded these days. Not the editors that make articles more informative, but the Vogons who find new rules to nitpickingly apply, and to do so to the letter, not the spirit. JesseRafe (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth has the nationality got to do with anything...? I never said Americans were anything. That would be hate speech and a personal attack on a group of editors. If you feel I am in violation of these, I urge you with all haste to make the relevant admin report.

Why is the discussion about the tags moot and off point? The whole point of the tags is highlight area's for development and to work on getting the articles up to GA Status, the goal of any editor regardless of their contributions. Tenebrae was in no way abusing policies and guidelines. That is a very serious accusation and if you feel that way you should promptly head over to the relevant Admin board and make a report because Wikipedia in itself does no tolerate that sort of behaviour.

As for your point earlier about it being about the street, fair enough, but what makes this street Notable enough to have it's own page? But that is an entirely different discussion in itself that I for one will not be a part of. MisterShiney ✉ 20:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing Wikipedia policies by asking for citations? The more I think about it, the more vile that attack feels. How dare I question the main writers of this article! For them to judge their work as so unquestionable and beyond reproach that any tags are "unmerited" is such hubris, as the bulk of the editors here seem to agree.

JesseRafe says the article is about a road. Yet the article calls it "a junction of streets." Which is it?

And may I ask the two principal writers of the article, who feel their work is above criticism or improvement, what is the source of these claims? The Encyclopedia of New York City doesn't include Cooper Square. So where does your claim about this "junction of streets" come from? And who says Cooper Square is only a junction of streets and not a district? There's a Times Square, and some of the street signs around 42nd St. and Broadway say "Times Square," but no one refers to "Times Square" as just a junction of streets, and I've lived in New York City over three decades and have only heard "Cooper Square" referred to as a neighborhood.

So perhaps there is a larger issue. In the meantime, I and several other editors here have never heard of anyone objecting to tags to improve an article that doesn't give a cite for its major claim! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what you've heard about? That's original research. It's a street. End of story, I notice you never responded when I showed how clearly it's the name of the street on maps: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=cooper+square&ie=UTF-8&ei=GJ4AUaeeAuXU0gGAyoHQCw&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAA

"In the meantime" whoever heard of giving cites to basic facts? A table is a piece of furnite - citation needed. Blue is a color - citation needed. Way to ruin wikipedia. JesseRafe (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that the articles on people like Hitler doesn't need citations because we all just know who he was? We're not talking about proving it's a street, we're talking about proving it's boundaries. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Is your reading comprehension that poor? My argument is that an article on Hitler would not need citation that he is a person. JesseRafe (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you need to stop being so excitable and stop verbally abusing other editors. Google Maps is not the be-all and end-all — it's often incorrect. The fact that you and the other editor who both don't want their work questioned can't come up with a single citation about Cooper Square is remarkable to me. I could come up with a million citations that a table is furniture.

@JesseRafe - Actually you would need a source that he is a person, that source would normally be for his name and/or age and/or place of birth and/or occupation to ascertain notability. Otherwise he is fictional Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person who makes a claim cant be the one to say it's self-evident — it's clearly not self-evident to many other editors. And by the way, WP:BLUE is an essay ... some random editor's opinion. It has no force whatsoever. Whereas WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR are core principles. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I understand the cause of all this. After further exploration ofBeyond My Ken's user sub-page, I think it is safe to say that said user seems to have some issue with tags and thinks that they are vandalism and therefore may be trying to prove a point on this article and taking it particularly personally that they have been added to a page he actively edits. Especially seeing as he see's them as and I quote:

"Many tags are essentially a vehicle for an editor to exert his or her POV without alerting the POV Patrol -- "opinion graffiti", in a very apt phrase. If you disagree with what an article says, you can edit it radically, and probably get caught up in an edit war, or you can slap a tag on it to discredit it without seemingly doing so."

He seems to feel very strongly about this which may go some way to describe his attitude in this conversation. MisterShiney ✉ 22:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate the time and effort that went into finding this information, this is an incorrect way to reference a work that is not standard for ANY manual of style, let alone Wikipedia as it is just effectively a chunk of information. I have therefore removed it and placed it here for another editor to incorporate properly into the article or to cite the works properly it references into the article. It is basically a chuck of information which is being used a source which if you look at it carefully has it's own sources within sources.

Here is the reference: According to New York City's official Geographic Information Systems map, at the intersection of East Fourth Street which is one block west of Second Avenue and one block west of Lafayette Street, the building on the southwest corner is 358 Bowery, and the building at the southeast corner is 359 Bowery, while the building at the northwest corner is 2 Cooper Square and the building at the northeast corner is 1 Cooper Square, confirming that the transition from the Bowery to Cooper Square takes place at East Fourth Street.

Visual corroboration is provided by the city's official street signs at the East Fourth Street intersection: on the northwest corner is "Cooper Sq / E 4 St", while at the southeast corner is "East 4 St / Bowery".

At the north end of the square, the last building to use the Cooper Square address on the eastern spur is 71 Cooper Square, just south of the intersection with St. Mark's Place; the building across St. Mark's is 23 Third Avenue. On the western spur of the Square, the last Cooper Square address is 56 Cooper Square; the next building uses a Lafayette Street address, while the building on the other side of Astor Place has a Fourth Avenue address, an indication that Cooper Square ends at Astor Place.

Visual corroboration is provided by the city's official street signs at the intersection with Astor Place, such as this one showing the transition from Cooper Square to Fourth Avenue at Astor Place, and "St Marks Pl/Cooper Sq on the southeast corner of that intersection and "3 Av/St Marks Pl" on the northeast corner. MisterShiney ✉ 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photos certainly work for me. While the maps simply give an address in a lefthand column, without the term Cooper Square appearing anywhere on the map itself, they do corroborate the term and the addresses so that we have something in addition to the photos.

Let me play with the cite formatting and see if I can tidy this up.

The next question, of course, is how to differentiate between the junction of streets and the neighborhood that are both called Cooper Square. Optimally, it'd be consistent with such similar locales as Times Square or Lincoln Square (Manhattan), the opening sentence of which reads, "Lincoln Square is the name of both a square and the surrounding neighborhood...." -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the two tags that have been added (NYC DOT and Rough Guide to New York) footnote the confluence well. I dont' believe we'd need any more footnoting for the boundaries. I think Beyond My Ken's edit here seems perfect, though the uncivil edit summary was unnecessary. Those footnotes were all anyone was asking for, and I'm certainly in agreement to remove the tags if we're in consensus on that.

The other material above could go into a separate section title something like "Street addresses". I'll work that up, put it here, see what other editors think. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, as long as there are proper citations within the article body it's fine by me. I believe said user to be very uncivil in general and if he is not willing to collaborate with other editors then he has no place here. He repeatedly deletes my comments on his talk page...he even deleted my cookie! Who deletes a cookie?!?! MisterShiney ✉ 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it takes all kinds. *Sigh* In any event, because the addresses in the text above, such as 348 Bowery, are listed here here but, unfortunately, don't show up on the map, these maps aren't really of much use since they don't confirm where the addresses are. And since we've already footnotes the defined boundaries, I'm not certain the text material above is even needed.

The closeups of the street signs, however, might make a good, encyclopedic addition to the gallery — what are editors' thoughts on that?

And again, now that the two pertinent footnotes have been added, I'm certainly in agreement with removing the tags and ending the RfC if we're in consensus on that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Now prove with how many manhours that Broadway is a street. Tenebrae, there is no neighorhood called Cooper Square - and Business Improvement Association would have their own agenda, not be an impartial source of neighborhood knowledge, not until it passes into parlance. Like the decades it took for realtors to cull "East Village" out of the Lower East Side. JesseRafe (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The location, length, and end points of Broadway (New York City) are already cited, so there's no need to do so. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JesseRafe, please stop being uncivil and sarcastic. There's just no need, and it's not constructive. Also, again, "a junction of streets" and a "a street" are by definition two different things.

It's not the BID, but the civic organization the Cooper Square Association that calls it a neighborhood, if that's what you mean. Also, it's a common designation in the real- estate industry. Obviously, I wouldn't put anything into any article until I have journalistic sources and not simply real-estate sites calling it that.

So would anyone object to removal of the tags now that the footnotes have been added? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Now lets all go have a nice relaxing cup of tea. MisterShiney ✉ 12:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you wont follow BRD, I will. What is the point in you reverting a justified change without providing an edit summary. You are just showing your deliberate childish antagonistic behaviour. Your edit summary is ridiculous and does not assume good faith at all! Or perhaps you feel you own the article? -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMK is like that with other articles as well. [1] [2] [3] In all three, he has reverted legitimate edits to the versions that he feels like looking at. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the 3RR issue involving the spelling of "the Bowery / The Bowery," discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Bowery rather than here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently protected. I don't see why anyone needs to be blocked here so this is the easy way out. Once the or not to the is figured out at Talk:Bowery, this should be moot anyway. --regentspark (comment) 22:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cooper Square. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120905102950/http://www.oldstreets.com/index.asp?letter=S to http://www.oldstreets.com/index.asp?letter=S
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111028172903/http://www.thecoopersquarehotel.com/the-hotel/the-story to http://www.thecoopersquarehotel.com/the-hotel/the-story

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]