Talk:Manhattan/Upper East Side

Museum of the City of New York is really in East Harlem, and there is an entry for it in the Harlem page. Perhaps it should be excluded from this page. -- Michael 11:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Copyvio in the opening of this topic? It seems the same as the writing in this New York Magazine article: http://nymag.com/realestate/articles/neighborhoods/uppereast.htm 66.108.234.143 16:49, 22 February 2008 (EST)

It is indeed—that article predates this one, so this one must be the copyvio. Thanks for catching that! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:33, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Maps

There are two maps on this page: A static map that really still isn't too visible and a dynamic map which is excellent. Who objects to removing the static map from this page, on the basis that we shouldn't have two types of maps of the same neighborhood and the map we use should be the one that most benefits the traveler, not one that an editor prefers for some other reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The static map is still better for the traveler because it's oriented along the correct axis instead of north-south. Powers ^(talk) 18:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And you can't read it. Serving the traveler means using maps the traveler can read. So other than LtPowers, is there anyone else who objects to removing the static map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, ignore anyone who disagrees with you. Great way to collaborate, Ikan. Powers ^(talk) 23:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because you are always opposed to dynamic maps, even in a case like this, when it seems obviously illogical and doesn't serve the traveler to oppose them. Therefore, unless you or someone else edits the static map to make it superior to the dynamic map, I will absolutely try to find a consensus that doesn't include you, because in this kind of case, ignoring your opinion seems to be what's needed to serve the traveler's interest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. You're assuming your conclusion. Since any opinion that disagrees with yours is "obviously illogical", there's no room for debate, is there? The height of arrogance. Powers ^(talk) 01:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Try to find any other person who thinks the static map in this article is more readable than the dynamic map. I'll be interested to see if you find anyone. This isn't a matter of arrogance; it's a matter of caring more about the reader/traveler than about a principle of traditional cartography. I have over 20 atlases and have been a geography buff since I was 6 or younger, but for practical purposes, I now use Google maps and the like much more often than the beautiful atlases that I love and don't have the heart to give up. I've seen your uncompromising opposition to dynamic maps. You call me arrogant; I would point out that you would serve the traveler better by being more flexible on this issue. And since you won't, I will continue to ignore your non-arguments (the small matter of an otherwise unreadable static map showing the directions we New Yorkers think of as "north" and "south" cannot be said to override its unreadability). Edit the map and make it readable at a size that's reasonable to insert into this article, and then everyone will be happy with it. Until then, you don't seem to have anything to say except that I should "collaborate" more and be less "arrogant" by respecting your preferences over the interest of the reader/traveler. I see no reason to do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you find eat listing #6 on the dynamic map? How about sleep listing #2? And remember -- no zooming or panning allowed, because we're talking about the maps as they appear in the article. I don't understand why you're willing to overlook the amateurish icon overlaps and the lack of custom orientations in dynamic maps, but not overlook the faults of a high-quality static map that you could easily fix to make readable if you were willing to put in a bit of effort. Powers ^(talk) 18:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I can hardly read anything on the static map. If you want to rescue it, please edit it and don't tell me that I can easily fix it, because I have never taught myself how to make or edit a static map and won't spend a lot of leisure time I don't really have to teach myself now. I invite you to make the edits. Otherwise, we have to judge the maps as they are now, and despite the imperfections in the dynamic map, its superior readability, overall, seems to be obvious to everyone but you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The static map is fine if you view it full-size. Both maps require steps to be taken to view everything on them. Why favor the dynamic map over the static, unless it's just because you don't like handcrafted maps? Why not ask User:PerryPlanet to update his map? And how quickly are you going to move on to the next Manhattan district, threatening to remove the map unless I get to work on fixing it? Powers ^(talk) 19:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Perry Planet hasn't been here for months, right? You know very well that these articles are supposed to be printable in one shot. I already told you, I love maps. That's not the issue. Yes, perhaps Manhattan/Upper West Side should be next to have a new map, but the reason push came to shove here is that the article has two maps, and one is clearly better than the other, except to you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

They both have problems, and neither one is suitable for printing out-of-the-box, so to speak. So why not leave them both in the article and let the reader decide which one he wants to take steps to make readable? Powers ^(talk) 20:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Support for removing the static map. The dynamic map is more readable and more up-to-date, and assuming that the reason for the static map alignment is readability, the dynamic map is more readable even with the off-axis alignment. Note that even at full-screen using the new media viewer the static map labels are not readable to me, so I think Ikan's readability argument has significant merit, even ignoring any other arguments related to dynamic vs. static maps. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So fix the map, for crying out loud. This is a wiki, everything's editable. Powers ^(talk) 23:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit maps, but I do know when a map has names I can read and when it doesn't. If you think the static map can be superior to the dynamic map, perhaps you'd like to edit it to make all the features on it readable, and thereby rescue it. And when you're done with that, try looking at the other static maps for New York neighborhoods... Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

To the point about "fixing" the static map, we currently have two maps, and ignoring any arguments for or against dynamic/static maps, the current dynamic map is far more readable than the static map, so I don't see any point in "fixing" a map when a superior alternative is already present. If someone wants to redo the static map and make an argument for it being superior to the dynamic map then we can have that debate, but the current reality is a choice between two existing maps, one of which is clearly more usable than the other. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Support for the dynamic map. As traveler I do enjoy when geo coordinates of the possible places are available (; Great progress since last Automn by the way).

Concerning the rotation this is not a blocker, but should be noted to the dynamic map guys, that some locations needs a to be aligned differently than North-South. --Axisstroke (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that editable? It would be great to orient this map such that the grid of numbered streets is all horizontal and not diagonal. Where should this be proposed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Rotation of dynamic maps is not possible. The used software does not support that. - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's too bad, but thanks for letting us know. Nevertheless, the dynamic map is clearly better in this article, in my opinion. Please express your own opinion about whether the static or dynamic map should be deleted from this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Support for removing the static map. The dynamic map is easier to read and supports the practical 1 clickable markers in the article texts. - Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it would be nice if someone just fixed the map, but I don't think there is a critical mass of people to even consider static maps to be a big priority. Take a look at Lausanne being summarily demoted from a star article with little fanfare due to poor maps, though I think its information is rather sparse too. No one could rescue it in time and I see no difference in saying that the static map in this article is poor as well, not even in relation to dynamic maps. I've replaced the old map of Singapore/Chinatown with a dynamic map because it was just too dated. Sure if there was more time, I would rather be writing more about trips, both recent and old, than making SVGs of city maps. Region maps are still pretty useful and pretty though. -- torty3 (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[Unindent]So far, we have a count of 5-1 in favor of removing the static map. I will take no action for another couple of days to see if anyone else expresses an opinion, because it's still a relatively small number of people. Powers, I once again invite you to find others in favor of keeping the static map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

...(sigh). I'm really of two minds of this matter. On one hand - and I think this is more just the natural consequence of the fact that I created the thing - I hate to see the static map go, just because I'm proud of the work I put into it. On the other hand, I don't find the quality of the dynamic map to be so objectively lacking that I am opposed to it, either. My only real problem with the dynamic map is the lack of useful transit info on it; on my static maps, I made the subway lines and stations a prominent part of the map, given how essential they are to getting around Manhattan. On the dynamic map, there's no lines and you have to zoom in to see the station icons, and even then they give no info as to what the stations are called or which lines they serve, and given the complexity of the New York subway system, I feel like this makes the current subway icons next to useless. If there's a way to resolve that matter, I would have no complaints about using the dynamic map.

But more than that, I'm sick of the fact that 90% of the time, I'm the only one who bothers to update the maps I create. It really isn't that hard to do it, yet there's clearly a reluctance among other users to do so, perhaps because the prospect of dealing with Inkscape scares people off. Now if I had just made one or two static maps, I wouldn't be worried about this, but I made all the static maps for Manhattan. So if I'm the only guy bothering to update any of them, that's a bit much for me. And in a case like this, where the guy who made them has barely been active the last few months, this is downright damaging to a website that's supposed to be a collaborative effort where work can pass between hands as people come and go.

This is a problem that the dynamic maps don't seem to face, so if replacing the static maps with dynamic ones is what it takes to get people to actually update the map, then great. Let's do it. Besides LtPowers, no one here seems to have any interest in the upkeep of the static maps, and I accept that. (But can we at least do something about the lack of decent transit info on the dynamic map?) PerryPlanet (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Perry, thanks for coming by and expressing your views. Is it possible to address the problems with transit system mapping in dynamic maps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

With the layer control (top right) you can select different map content. Layer "Traffic line network" contains all informations about public transport (see example 1). Bus and tram stops are also included when available in OpenStreetMap (see example 2). The update of OSM is very easy (see OSM editor). -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, more steps for the user to take to get a useful printable map. The arguments against the handcrafted one are falling one by one. Powers ^(talk) 14:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As it is very, very clear that we're not going to resolve fundamental differences of opinion over the value of static vs dynamic maps, and since there is only one objection and significant support for the dynamic map, I've gone ahead and made the change. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that my objections have in any way been addressed. Is there a compelling reason why both maps can't stay? Powers ^(talk) 18:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplication. We discourage that, correct? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But since both are imperfect, both bring something to the table that the other doesn't have, right? Powers ^(talk) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to PerryPlanet, who I really wish were around and editing more, I don't think a map that is almost impossible to read on the screen brings very much to the table. And I think it's a bit strange to have two different maps for the same neighborhood in one article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But that was the compromise, Ikan. We agreed not to stand in the way of dynamic maps being added to articles so long as handcrafted maps weren't removed. Powers ^(talk) 15:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I sincerely don't remember such a compromise. Can you please point us to the discussion where it was agreed to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition#Are we ready to start deploying dynamic maps across the site?, which led to Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition#Stage 3: Broader deployment (specifically "Do not add a dynamic map when a Wikivoyage-style static map is already present."). When I wrote that proposal the goal was to allow broader deployment of dynamic maps, but to also try to avoid any conflict in cases where a static map was already present - we didn't want people replacing good static maps with dynamic maps since we don't have any guidance on when or if one should be preferred to the other. However, as with anything on this wiki, I interpreted that as being subject to additional discussion for specific cases, and not a prohibition against ever proposing a static map be replaced under any circumstances. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If I had taken part in that discussion, I would have disagreed with never being able to substitute a much clearer dynamic map for a pretty much unreadable static map. However, I understand why you are upset about this, Powers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well then Ryan that wasn't much of a compromise, was it? Powers ^(talk) 12:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the Metropolitan Museum be moved here?

So the Metropolitan Museum of Art is currently on the Central Park page, placed there obviously because it fits within the basic parameters of Central Park (5th Ave-8th Ave, 59th St-110th St). However, I'm wondering if it would be better placed here, with the other attractions of "Museum Mile". It's oriented towards the Upper East Side, and as such is cut off from the rest of the park despite being technically within it.

What does everyone else think? PerryPlanet (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, though I would't redraw the borders, and I'd still mention it on the Central Park page. Powers ^(talk) 19:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Good points. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine that the complete listing is in the Central Park article. It should be mentioned on this page, but that doesn't mean the whole listing has to be moved here. If it is, though, based on the rationale you give, I wouldn't fight it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Weill Cornell Medical Institute

This was just added as a "See" listing. here is a Google image search result. Do you think it's beautiful or striking? Its existence as a medical school is irrelevant for non-student visitors. Is it a viable "See" listing? What do you think? I've never intentionally visited it, nor do I think it stands out compared to other hospital buildings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't immediately see anything noteworthy enough about it to warrant a "See" listing, but why don't we ask the person who added it to share their thoughts as to why they think it warrants a "See" listing? The dog2, would you like to weigh in on this? PerryPlanet (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipapers?

Re: this edit: What are wikipapers, and is there a reason why links to them are not covered by the same guidelines as Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Urban Outfitters

See here. There are 10 locations in New York, 8 of which are in Manhattan, and there are a bunch of locations in suburbs. They're also an international chain - I searched Toronto, London, Berlin, Vienna, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Paris and got results. I think that per WV:Boring, we shouldn't list it in this article. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Eat" section

I just edited out what I considered outrageous touting of a fairly good ice cream chain listing. I also just edited out the hypey expression "endless variety" from another listing for a bakery I actually love, so I think it will make sense to go through the language in all the listings.

That said, a bigger issue is what happened to the "Budget", "Mid-range" and "Splurge" division of this section? (Answer here.) Unless money is no object (and for most travelers, it is - don't forget that most visitors to the Upper East Side won't stay there), price within a particular radius is the first consideration when considering restaurants. Only when you find acceptably priced places do you consider what cuisine they serve. So I really want that normal division restored. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just restored the normal "Budget", "Mid-range" and "Splurge" categories and plugged the new entries into them. The next time someone wants to so radically alter the structure of this article, please discuss it on this page and see what kind of pushback you get before acting. I think the next step is going to be to reduce the amount of overall gushing. If everyplace is great, wonderful and fantastic, how does a reader distinguish between them? For the record, for example, I haven't been impressed with Fledermaus's cuisine - e.g., their goulash is just OK, but it's expensive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing of subway map

Hello everyone. I was just wondering if and how someone could change the interactive map with all of the points and places to include the newly built 2nd Avenue Subway. I am certainly not an expert in creating maps and my computer doesn't have the best software to do it so if someone could do that quick inclusion I'd be super grateful! Thegayfrenchbullie123 (talk) 16:26, January 4, 2020 (EST)