Talk:Times Square

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Super category Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan[edit]

Please stop adding this super category. It's already in Category:Times Square, which is already in Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan, and the category Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan applies to all members of Category:Times Square, including this article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, normally you'd be correct, but as I explained in the edit summary, the average reader who is on this article and is seeking similar visitor attractions in Manhattan would not realize that they first had to click thru the "Times Square" category to get there. Even those experienced with categories might not realize that. The purpose of categories is to help readers and this article is not over-categorized. We must always keep readers in mind first. When rules get in the way, Ignore All Rules!! -- 72.251.71.218 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Other members of the subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan are not themselves categorized directly into Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan (e.g. Category:Libraries in Manhattan, Category:Museums in Manhattan, etc).

Also, the way that categories set up, articles should be categorized as specifically as possible. There is more than one category that readers can click to get to Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan. That doesn't mean that readers can't get to it, though. From the category page, however, it can be confusing to have both the sub-category and the article in the same parent category. Epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An article should have, right at the bottom of its page, all the categories that a resonable person is likely to want to click on in order to find similar articles. Otherwise categories are for the benfit of OCD editors, not readers. 72.251.71.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Categorizing the article in "Visitor attractions in Manhattan" via the category "Times Square" is reasonable. This article is an overview of the square. I doubt a reasonable person would say "Hey, let's go to Times Square and hang around all day doing nothing there". I bet they'd rather go and see what's in (the neighborhood of) and around Times Square, and all the things to do there. Many people, actually, are going to be inclined to click on the category link Category:Times Square to find out articles about nearby places of interest. However, we can reasonably add the category "Visitor attractions in Manhattan" if the "Times Square" category is categorized such that the "Times Square" article doesn't fit in the category under which the "Times Square" category is sorted. Epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Times Square is one of many "Visitor attractions in Manhattan", most of which are not in the vicinity of Times Square. That's why both categories make sense. It's that simple. 72.251.71.218 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it's a visitor attraction, but your sentence doesn't make sense. All other visitor attractions in Manhattan are not in Times Square, so both "Times Square" and Category:Times Square are in Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan? I can understand either the article or the category "Times Square" being in Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan, but having the Times Square article sorted in Category:Visitor attractions in Manhattan, when the Times Square category is already sorted accordingly, is redundant. Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It is redundant! So what? Redundancy is useful in this case. 72.251.71.218 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Not across most of Wikipedia, which was why I removed that category originally, but if you say so, OK. Epicgenius (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Images in the history section[edit]

Images on Wikipedia are places to help readers understand the written content which appears on the page. Over the past week I have tried to add images to this page which reflect the page's historical content but these changes have been reverted and new images have even been added by reverting editor(s). Before reverting any additional changes to this page's images please read Wikipedia image policy and decide and make clear to other edits why your edit is justified under those guidelines.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender (sculpture)[edit]

The sculpture Unconditional Surrender is in Times Square for the next 3 days. Does it merit a mention? I already uploaded an image of the sculpture. Epic Genius (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Three days hardly seems significant. BMK (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point, but the Super Bowl Boulevard is also mentioned. That lasted all of a week. Plus, this sculpture was placed here because it is based on a picture named V-J Day in Times Square, which was taken in the exact same spot. Epic Genius (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess since the artwork's copyrighted (as BMK explained to me), it can't be added unless it has a fair use rationale. Epic Genius (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Not precisely what I said. As long as the image is on Commons, you can use it here, but since there's no Freedom of Panorama in the US for copyrighted public art (as I believe there should be), it's possible that it could be deleted from there at any time -- so the best choice, wherever you want to use it, including the article on the sculpture itself, is to upload it here with a fair-use rationale for each article. My concern about using it in the Times Square article under fair-use is that it might be stretching NFCC a bit to do so, but using it in the scultpure article itself seems fine, so why not upload it here on en.wiki with a proper rationale so you don;t have to worry about it possibly being deleted from Commons? BMK (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, but Commons has a category for the sculpture page, so should all of these images also fall under copyright law? Epic Genius (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they should, unless someone has evidence that the sculpture is in the public domain, or has been released under a CC license. That's a Commons problem, though. BMK (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Matters are complicated somewhat by the fact that the original image is in the National Archives and appears that it may be in the public domain as being made by an agency of the US government (the Navy), but I don't believe that that prevents a derivative work, such as the sculpture, from being copyrighted. However, I'm no lawyer, and only a knowledgeable copyright amateur when it comes to complex situations like that, so I continue to think that the safest thing is to use it under fair-use/NFCC here. BMK (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
All right, I get what you're saying. If it's a picture of a sculpture or anything, it should be uploaded under the fair use criterion. Epic Genius (talk)
If it's still in copyright, yes. BMK (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

how many people at New Year Celebrations[edit]

Has anyone ever made any sensible calculations regardingthe nunber of people who can attend the Times Square New Years Eve celebration.?The media always say there were one or two or even three million people there. In fact the square reaches from 42nd to 47th street,thats five blocks each about 200 feet...the two roads that criss cross are each only about90 feet wide giving a standing space maximum of 180,000 square feet..but its really less as the police for safety reasons keep lanes free for access etc.Assuming three aquare feet per standing person. say its 150,000 divided by three feet perperson that makes a total crowd of about 50,000 maximum..Even if you doubled this it would only be about 100,000 far far less than a million or even half a million . On some occasions I have only seen a few thousand there. Incidentally the 1884 Washington Conference on internation time settled that the New Year begins when Big Ben strikes twelve in London..Big Ben is coodinated with Greenwich about twelve miles away which is where the new year really starts.. When the ball drops in Times Square the New Year is already five hours old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.176.218 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything you've just done is called original research. The NYPD releases its estimates every year. Your point about Big Ben is irrelevant: the New Year begins in every time zone at midnight in that zone. BMK (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Image sizes[edit]

Wikipedia's Image Use Policy WP:IMGSIZE says "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width." And MOS:IMGSIZE says "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section." The images in this article violate the policy and the MOS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The pictures in this article have been at this size for years, and are just fine as they are. Per WP:IAR, please do not change them without an actual practical need to do so, as opposed to blindly following policy without concern for the quality of the article. MOS, on the other hand, is a guideline and not policy, and therefore is not mandatory and cannot be violated. BMK (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
IAR only applies to improvements. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Correct, and the layout as it stands is an improvement in relation to the layout you attempted to implement. BMK (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
You mean it looks better to you on your screen, right? The one recommended by the policy and MOS looks better to me on my screen. The policy is intended to recommend image sizes that will result in the best layout for the most readers. Is there something special about this article that requires (for your screen) IAR? Or do all articles require IAR, in which case maybe a change to the policy would be in order? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that's not the case. Only people with Wikipedia accounts can adjust their thumbnail sizes, so that vast majority of people see postage-stamp=-sized images unless they are properly sized. My set-up is totally standard, the same thing the vast majority of people will see, so the layout is just fine. BMK (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Times 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

County/Borough[edit]

Jackson, Kenneth T., ed. (1995), The Encyclopedia of New York City, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 0300055366 p.147 says:

"boroughs. The five administrative divisions of New York City, created by consolidation in 1898. Each borough elects a borough president and is coextensive with one county: Manhattan with New York County, the Bronx with Bronx County, Brooklyn with Kings County, Queens with Queens County and Staten Island with Richmond County."

On p.320, it says:

"counties. New York City is made up of five separate and complete counties ... Among other things, the counties administer the court systems."

On p.786, it says:

"Manhattan. ... The borough of Manhattan is coextensive with New York County."

On p.911, it says:

"New York County. One of the five counties of New York City, coextensive with the borough of Manhattan."

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

nyc.gov, the official website of New York City, says on this page:
"New York City Counties The City of New York is made up of five boroughs. The State of New York is made up of counties. Each City borough is also [a] State county."
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
From Ward, Robert C. (2006) New York State Government (2nd ed.) SUNY Press, p.517:
"The five counties that make up New York City, also known as boroughs, retain some vestoiges of county status – foer example, each has a locally elected district attorney. But, unlike other counties, the five in New York City do not have independent fiscal or legislative powers. The state's largest city government centralizes most county-type functions for its five boroughs."
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
From U.S. Department of Commerce [and] U.S. Department of State (1982) State and Local Government Special Studies: 1948-1961 p.91:
"New York City, New York ... Counties: ... The five counties comprising New York City are substantially consolidated with the city for governmental purposes and are not considered, for Census reporting, as independent units of government."
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
From Cudahy, Brian J. (2002) How We Got to Coney Island: The Development of Mass Transportation in Brooklyn and Kings County Fordham University Press, p.15:
"While the five borough of the City of New York are subdivisions of the city government, the five counties are, in essence, subdivisions of the state government. Each county has a governmental apparatus that includes such functions as a district attorney, sheriff, and courts. This apparatus is separate from whatever municipal apparatus is appropriate to each borough's governance as a subdivision of the City of New York."
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to prove or what it is that you misunderstand. We have a few choices of how to present this information regarding the borough and county being coextensive (none of which is news to me) in the infobox:

A) Borough / County = Manhattan / New York County
B) Borough / County = Manhattan / New York
C) Borough / County = Borough of Manhattan / New York County
D) Borough / County = Borough of Manhattan / New York

You have chosen option A; I among the editors who have chosen option B, and as such I will restore this edit. When you have consensus to support your version, I will be happy to support the change; until the resist the urge to edit war. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • In this RfC a consensus of editors and the closer of the RfC determined that "New York" without any further description generally refers to New York City, and therefore that incoming links which refer to the state should be piped to New York (state). It is thus deceptive to have the "Borough/County" line say "Manhattan / New York" without further identification that "New York" refers neither to the state or the city but to "New York County". This fulfills our obligation to always think about serving the needs of the reader, who in many cases will not be aware that there is a county by that name. It is also the status quo ante of the article before a recent edit - therefore not "my choice", but the choice of the many editors who passed through the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Your argument is specious and -- far worse -- came belatedly after you violated 3RR. You have used the excuse of restoring your preferred version as status quo ante before and you know full well that the claim is BS. As a seven-time loser, you can face the consequences of your abuse. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Please check (A) the time stamps, and (B) the definition of 3RR, and I think you'll find that you're mistaken. Doesn't matter, really, your fixation on my editing and automatic reversions of it (which has been noted previously by several admins) in an attempt to goad me into violating WP:EW is extremely tedious, so I feel no more need to engage you. Instead, I've asked for WP:3O). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request :
You're both at WP:3RR, so it's probably a good thing to sit down and discuss this calmly and civilly before continuing the edit war. Pertaining to the topic at hand: Since New York without any disambiguators is generally taken to refer to the city, calling this New York County as per several of the sources above is definitely a good idea. Another option, if you cannot gain consensus on how to portray this information, is to omit the line from the infobox entirely. Bradv 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

  • My opinion would be to eliminate county altogether from the infobox line across the board, as it adds nothing. Strip it down in the infobox to Borough = Manhattan, without listing county at all. This same pairing of borough / county appears in the infobox for Little Italy, Manhattan, and may also appear elsewhere. While Manhattan / New York County is one problem, the other four pairs of 1) Brooklyn / Kings County, 2) Bronx / Bronx County, 3) Queens / Queens County and 4) Staten Island / Richmond County all add nothing to an infobox about any of the places within the five coterminous boroughs / counties in New York City. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Since except for the limited governmental processes listed above (of which the DA and the courts are the only really important ones), counties in NYC are really only a rump version of what counties are in the rest of the state, I would agree with that. The loss of "New York County" in the infobox would be a minimal decrease in information, as long as the county's existence and function is mentioned somewhere in the article, if appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of the NYC WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

There are about two dozen articles that have an entry for "borough / county" in the infobox for places in the five boroughs. I've removed the "county" portion of several of these, and referred back to this talk page in the edit summary. Either this will trigger further participation or it will show that no one cares about the removal. Of course it could just mean that no one cares either way. Let's see. Alansohn (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

OK.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I don't have an opinion as to either format. But there should be a consistent format for {{Infobox settlement}} for all NYC neighborhood articles. If borough-only seems to be preferred, then that's fine. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the infobox should only show "Borough" here and in similar articles. "County" is confusing and doesn't add anything to the infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. Infoboxes should strive for concision and adding New York County doesn't do anything. (Adding just "New York" makes the whole thing worse.)--regentspark (comment) 16:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Since there seems to be a consensus in favor of Alansohn's proposal, I am going to make the edit on this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Network[edit]

This edit which changed the description from "commercial intersection" to "commercial network" prompted me to look that term up (network, wikt:network), but I couldn't find any definition that would fit to Times Square. Also, replacing "neighborhood" with "entertainment center" seems not an improvement (TS is listed at List of Manhattan neighborhoods) but redundant because its entertainment role is explained two sentences later anyway. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I've made those changes in the lede, where they've been for a long, long time. It makes me think I should take a closer look at the changes that editor made in the rest of the article. I let them go by assuming that they were improvement per their edit summaries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Car Accident on May 18th, 2017[edit]

As seen in my previous edit, I believe this incident should be included as it was a major incident involving a fatality and numerous injuries, and was initially regarded as a possible terrorist attack. It gained major media coverage. Parzival1919 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the car accident which occurred today in Times Square, on the grounds that a car accident simply isn't notable enougth to be included in an article which encompasses the entire history of Times Square. Yes, one person was killed, 22 hwere injured, some of them with broken bones and people were sent to the hospital in critical condition, but this is no different from many car crashes which occur daily in the United States. If we were to include all accidents and crashes of this type in every applicable article, we would be overwhelming those article with what, in the context of the article is trivial information. Not trivial to the people who were injured or their families, or the families of the dead person, or for the person arrested in the incident, or to the people who were endangered but were uninjured, but trivial for Times Square, and trivial for our article about it.
The attempted car bombing incident was significant because it was unusual, even though no one died or was injured. But a car crash is, unfortunately, simply a commonplace of life in the United States, even when it takes place in Times Square. Media coverage is not, of course, a good indication of notability for our purposes, especially when one considers the age-old adage governing local news coverage: "If it bleeds, it ledes."
I ask the editor not to restore the material again without a consensus to do so from the editors here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I won't restore it again (unless there is a newly overwhelming consensus), but I still disagree. Given that this sparked concern over terrorism it is a larger issue than a simple car crash. Parzival1919 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, terrorism was initially considered as a possible motive -- as it should be in the absence of immediate facts -- but was quickly put aside when it became apparent that it was simply a case of drunk driving. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of the New York City Wiki Project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with BMK. This is just another unfortunate car crash in which someone died because of drunk driving. An average of 28 people die in the US every day from such crashes. If it were terrorism, that would be noteworthy, but this is just a typical car crash. epicgenius (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it was an suicide-murder attempt. He did it on purpose. Parzival1919 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
You got a source for that? SkyWarrior 21:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes. http://nypost.com/2017/05/18/times-square-maniac-told-cops-i-wanted-to-kill-them/ Parzival1919 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Alright. I would like there to be some consensus first before you decide to add it, though, in case others do disagree (my position is now at a "maybe", but I'm still skeptical). SkyWarrior 21:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if the "suicide by cop" theory turns out to be true, it's still not notable enough to include in this article. It's news and not encyclopedic content in relation to the subject here, which is Times Square. Now, if it should come out that the perpetrator deliberately picked Times Square, that might be enough of a hook for a short mention, but I'd still want to see a consensus of editors agree to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
How could he not have picked Times Square? He did it on purpose, and there are many streets in NYC he could have randomly done this in, I have a hard time imagining that he happened to do it in the densly populated and globablly recognized Times Square was a coinicidence. Still, I won't re-add it without futher consenus. Parzival1919 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
So your argument is "He did it on purpose so he had to do it in a populous area"? That's not how things work. Car crashes, even intentional ones, can happen anywhere, anytime. epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I should mention now that, while I do somewhat agree that this incident shouldn't be included, an article already exists. SkyWarrior 20:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
If that article is kept, there may be a good way to link to it, but however tragic the event is, there's no indication at this point that it would make sense to include it here. For such a big subject, there's a really high bar to include this or that event that happened there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, that article is nominated for deletion. epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't go to call this an accident by any means. It was initially reported as an accident, possible DUI-related, but I would say that it was intentionally downplayed by officials not to quell fears within people. The driver did this with intent and later accounts do show that he admitted to doing it with the intent of "killing people". Surveillance video is notable here since it shows competence to an extent. [1] It is going to result in changes to Times Square, likely permanent, so I'd say that this adds notability to the vehicular homicide case here. I would say 2017 Times Square vehicular attack should possibly be merged into here as per Wikipedia:Not news -- it's more relevant here due to the changes it will result in for Times Square. ExtremeHeat11 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Please provide citations from a reliable source which explicitly supports your contentions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Which contention are you referring to in specific? Initial reports were inaccurate in how they accounted the situation, which is not surprising since only preliminary information is available in the direct aftermath of an incident. For example, one source described it directly after the incident as "not intentional".[2] This stance was later changed and officials started to report it as intentional, including the mayor: "It appears to be intentional in the sense that he was troubled and lashing out". [3][4][5] Survellence video source. And the source for changes made to Times Square directly after the attack and plans for permanent changes. Most of this information is not directly relevant to Times Square -- I'm simply advocating for some of it to mentioned under the context that changes have/will be made in reguard to the attack. ExtremeHeat11 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
None of it is directly relevant to Times Square, except for the fact that it happened to happen there. What I was saying before was that if it was a deliberate act (which seems possible, but unproven), it might be relevant to the article if he picked our Times Square specifically, in advance, to do the deed, as opposed to any other very crowded place in Manhattan (of which there are many), or that TS was simply a "target of opportunity", i.e. he simply found himself there when his demons erupted. With so much unknown at this point, it is premature to assume that there's any reason to add the incident to the article over and above the safety barrier concern that Epicgenius already added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I very much oppose any such smerger as suggested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
" except for the fact that it happened to happen there" That in itself is a pretty good reason to include it. For example, [[6]] talks about shooting of officers that happened there earlier this year.
However, multiple media outlets have actually discussed this in the context of pedestrian safety and installation of infrastructure that might enhance that. (See NY Mag, NY Daily, NY Post etc.). That actually makes discussion around the attack relevant to the square.VR talk 16:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Lots of stuff happens on Times Square, but it's not all notable. This incident is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, simply saying the incident is not notable doesn't make it so. You need to give actual reasons. I gave actual reasons in my comment above, regarding pedestrian safety and installation of infrastructure at the plaza. That already makes this attack more relevant to the square than the 2010 bombing attempt.VR talk 01:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
With all return respect, you obviously haven't read the thread to which you added your comment. I've given more than sufficient reasons there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
For the reasons he's/she's highlighted, I agree with Vice Regent. Parzival1919 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of image[edit]

Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, walks through Times Square after speaking at the United Nations

I added the image on the right to the article, but it was removed by an editor who felt it was an "unnecessary image". The image has good resolution, is recent, and shows a senior US official and bodyguards walking through Times Square. As well, per MOS:IMAGES, the image is relevant to the article's topic, and offers variety to the article, as it is the only photo (except for the Naked Cowboy) that shows an identifiable person using Times Square. The input of others about the appropriateness of this image would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's unnecessary. There are plenty of photos in this article already, maybe even a couple too many, and this doesn't really add anything, while giving undue weight to an individual who, unlike the Naked Cowboy, isn't associated with Times Square. While not a bad photo, it doesn't really show a good or novel view of Times Square or a notable event there. Station1 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by User:Station1. Further I agree that some of the existing pictures could be removed, too. One of the two in the infobox should be removed. Madame Tussauds on 42nd is not strictly on Times Square. File:Times Sq Feb 2017 4.jpg is of dubious quality and doesn't add much below File:Tsq green chairs jeh.jpg. Pictures of the Paramount building and One Astor Plaza work much better in their own articles; they should all be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I resized the images yesterday to bring them inline with the standard 220px, so the page should appear a bit less crowded with photos. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Times 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Times 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)