Talk:Manhattan/Upper West Side
Extent of Lincoln Center
[edit]Lincoln Center does not extend beyond 66th St. and Fordham University is not part of it. I'd be most pleased if someone can do an elegant editing job on that part of the third paragraph, but if not, I'll come back at a later date and try my hand at it.
Michael 07:11, 7 Apr 2006 (UTC)
I have made the change, but please feel free to edit it further.
Michael 00:37, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)
Eat and Drink
[edit]Some confusion here. Most of the Eat and Drink options listed are north of 100th street and should perhaps be in the Morningside Heights section. The area between 96th and 110th is divyed up between Manhattan Valley (east of Broadway) and Bloomingdale (west of Broadway), and it makes no sense to have separate articles for those two neighborhoods, but my guess is that more people think of the area as being closer to (or a part of) Morningside Heights than UWS. At least for the area above 100th. If no one objects, I'll move the stuff north of 100th to Morningside Heights.
Guide status
[edit]I think this article is complete and good enough for guide status. (WT-en) –sumone10154 20:13, 10 February 2011 (EST)
- I'm going to have to disagree. While it is very close to being a guide, this is a massive district and the article feels far from complete. The buy and drink sections in particular seem lacking - none of the drink listings (and the majority of the eat listings as well) have any contact info and the buy section is almost entirely bookstores. For now I'm demoting this back to usable. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 06:42, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
Invisible map
[edit]The map is unreadable, and because of its shape, I don't see how it can be easily enlarged to a sufficient extent. What's the solution? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose we could replace it with a dynamic map. The shape of the neighborhood really doesn't lend itself to a map you can easily read in-text. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Probably so. But will the dynamic map print well from the page? The shape may remain a problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
See/Institutions of learning
[edit]I think all these institutions should probably be mentioned, especially as the conservatories among them hold concerts (most of them free) that visitors might want to attend. However, not all of them are really interesting to see. Columbia, Barnard, and Teacher's College certainly are - to which might be added the Jewish Theological Seminary and Union Theological Seminary, in the same area. Mannes College is a pretty building, but on a side street and not particularly notable as a place to visit specifically to look at the architecture. I don't find Juilliard all that interesting as architecture, but then I don't love most recent architecture, and anyone who goes to Lincoln Center - which is a sight, but even more so, a series of concert venues that are a destination in themselves - will see Juilliard's buildings. Manhattan School is another building near Columbia, but not all that amazing a building (though it's OK). Fordham is a good school, but the architecture of its Manhattan campus is kind of dull, in my opinion. So what should we do with this list of institutions of learning? Certainly, more should be said about performances, with links to their concert schedules (for Columbia, too, as their Miller Theatre has a somewhat interesting concert series). But should we really park them all in "See," divide them up some way, or list them separately, perhaps in the problematic and contentious optional "Learn" section? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Any opinions about this, anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well they definitely don't belong in Learn. Other than that, I don't know enough to say. Powers (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Any further thoughts on what to do with them? It seems odd to divide them up into different sections. Do you think they should be divided up somehow, or if not, which section would they be most appropriate in?
- Well they definitely don't belong in Learn. Other than that, I don't know enough to say. Powers (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I thought of another institution: The Ethical Culture Society also has notable concerts (e.g., the American Composers' Alliance), but the building itself is pretty and apparently architecturally notable (also see the coverage on the New York Ethical Culture Society's own page), so it can easily be listed in "See." Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking about this in 2019. Does anyone have new thoughts about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could include those institutions that are notable for tourism purposes (Columbia, UTS, TC, The Ethical Culture Society) in the See section. Then, under the Do section include any performance related info (Manhattan School's performance series, Miller Theater, PostCrypt at St. Paul's Chapel, etc.). Would that work? --RegentsPark (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think the best way to handle it is to have one listing apiece, and in the other section, have a brief summary and link to the other section. I'm guessing Fordham - Lincoln Center will probably get excluded on either count (not so interesting architecture and not much reason for non-students to go there). John Jay has some interesting concerts and may merit a listing on that basis, plus architecture, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could include those institutions that are notable for tourism purposes (Columbia, UTS, TC, The Ethical Culture Society) in the See section. Then, under the Do section include any performance related info (Manhattan School's performance series, Miller Theater, PostCrypt at St. Paul's Chapel, etc.). Would that work? --RegentsPark (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking about this in 2019. Does anyone have new thoughts about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Alternative banner for this article?
[edit]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) 05:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would choose to keep the original as it is more beautiful. The proposed banner is a somewhat bland cityscape. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I do not support a change. The Lincoln Center banner is clean. The new banner is chaotic and has weird curves that don't exist on Upper West Side streets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reasons I support the existing banner. Danapit (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Current Syced (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Western boundary of Harlem
[edit]As someone who grew up in the West 90s, I can say that we Upper West Siders always considered Morningside Av. to be straightforwardly part of Harlem, with Morningside Drive the eastern limit of the Upper West Side north of 110th St. Please look at Talk:Manhattan/Harlem and Upper Manhattan#Western boundary of Harlem for more further remarks and proposals of what actions to take. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Why does this article have 2 maps?
[edit]Isn't the policy to leave out a dynamic map if the static map is as good or better? Why two maps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I've taken the static map out because it contains obsolete listings. If we do prefer the static map, perhaps include only museums, landmarks etc? Eat/drink listings change way too often. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer a non-slanted orientation for the neighborhood, as it's unimportant to precisely represent north and south and anyway, that's what a compass icon is for, but I prefer one map of the neighborhood to two and understand your reasoning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- You're right about the orientation. I'm not technically competent enough to figure this out but I wonder if the orientation of the dynamic map can be changed. Another possibility is that we restrict the listings to include only the do, see, and stay (likely to be less fluid), and then add a few eat/drink of the more permanent sort (established clubs, restaurants). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer a non-slanted orientation for the neighborhood, as it's unimportant to precisely represent north and south and anyway, that's what a compass icon is for, but I prefer one map of the neighborhood to two and understand your reasoning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
[undent] About the map again: It's wrong. The Upper West Side starts at 59th St., not at 62nd St., end then there's a section north of 97th St. that is improperly shaded. How do we fix this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)