Talk:6½ Avenue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nickname vs. actual thoroughfare[edit]

This is not just a nickname for a bunch of crosswalks. Here is my thought:

  • Official words from NYCDOT referred to as an avenue, "We’re basically building a new pedestrian avenue ..." No word from them ever mentioned to suggest that the name is merely a nickname. 
  • Bloomberg also recognized it as a street[1]
  • Regulated traffics at all intersections
  • Standard green street signs with cross streets at all intersections. 
  • There are tons of mid-block public malls / plazas in midtown. Many are named. But none has walkable Google street view. This one has. 
  • Reporters have been using "intersections", "new street", "mini street"[2], "the new pedestrian-only route"[3] 

So, I don't think we should call it a nickname of something, but it should be an actual named thoroughfare, and the officials called it an avenue. Z22 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nickname because it has no actual name. The media reports say things like "some call it..." or "you might call it..." and so on. That's not an actual name, so, by definition, it's a nickname.

If there's an official city name for the pedestrian corridor, than that's what the name of the article should be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for "avenue", please our article Avenue (landscape) for the original meaning of the word, which has nothing to do with being a "street". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you meant by saying 'no actual name'. The official name given by the governing body of the New York City named it that way, not just someone said something, not just dubbed by media. NY Times actually reported it, "Officially Marking a New Manhattan Avenue ... the city posted official signs to formally mark the new pedestrian-only route." See details with a picture here: [4]. It is as official as it can be by having the street sign with that name installed by NYCDOT, and a big map making company already recognized that official name. As you may have noticed that the reports with "some call it...", etc were the earlier reports when the name was just proposed (to replace the earlier proposed name) but have not been approved yet, so it was not the official name at that time. Now that it was approved, the media reported differently, one example was with NY Times. Another example is DNA Info, "...with official city street signs bearing its new name: 6 1/2 Avenue. The new six-block-long avenue has been more than a year in the making..."[5]. As to the word avenue, they referred to as a street. See CBS report, "A new avenue is coming to Midtown. Actually, it’s a mini avenue seven blocks long and reserved for pedestrians. And because it’s a 'mini' street it’s got a 'mini' name — '6 1/2' Avenue."[6]. This is a pedestrian-only street and it has an official name. Perhaps, the sources that I used in the article were not good enough. You think the new list of sources I have here on the talk page is better at communicating the official name? I can add those in to clarify. Z22 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it looks like you are right, and I am wrong -- the street sign clinches it. Sorry for doubting it, and thanks for taking the time to post the evidence, I really do aqppreciate it, and wish more people would do the same hen conflicts of this kind come up. If you haven't done so already, I'll remove "nickname" from the article. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If it doesn't rain tomorrow, I'll pop out and take a photo of one of the street signs and post it to Commons so it can be used in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Having picture in the article will definitely help. I will also add some of newer references into the article as they seem useful to communicate the name more clearly than the earlier sources. By the way, should we revert back on the articles of those east-west streets, as this is an official cross street? Z22 (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I don't think so. While clearly an official-named "avenue", it's not a vehicular street as are all the other intersections, so its status is, in my mind, a little different. For instance, some streets have mid-block traffic lights (I'm thinking of West 42nd Street between 7th and 8th) and yet we don't indicate those in our articles, and that's pretty much what 6 1/2 Avenue amounts to. Perhaps it should be mentioned separately, which would also get it a bit more notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a second thought about this. Take a look at this edit I made to 52nd Street (Manhattan). If you agree, I think that perhaps it might be used for the other streets as well. Whaddya think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. You may use it for other streets as well. Z22 (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it was raining today, I figured that I would just use the images I took from yesterday. You can change to a better ones if you have. Z22 (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, yours are just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious group removal[edit]

The "The Friends of Privately Owned Public Spaces" was erroneously pipe wikilinked to the wiki list of POPS in NYC, see comments, which I corrected. The The Friends of Privately Owned Public Spaces does not have (nor necessarily need) a Wikipedia article. We do need a citation corroborating whether they were the impetus for creating the pedestrian arcade, which I noted in the article.

Next, I removed the chronologically inaccurate sentence,

"The group also organized an event in October 2011 to boost awareness of the shortcut while the study was on going.<ref>[http://www.timeout.com/newyork/things-to-do/holly-whyte-way-arcade-parade "Holly Whyte Way Arcade Parade"], ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]''. Accessed: July 30, 2012</ref>"

In fact, this was not done to boost awareness, prior to the construction, but was a (seemingly minor) event after the fact, per the actual text:

Posted: Thu Mar 15 2012 March down the streets in this one-of-a-kind parade. The Friends of Privately Owned Public Spaces hosts the first ever Holly Whyte Way Parade

--FeralOink (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The group was real. It might not be notable, but it was not fictitious. So, it is okay not to have an article for the organization that might not meet WP notability criteria. I already pointed out in my edit that the citation is just a sentence away (from DNAInfo).
By the way, The parade date should be in March 2012. It could be a minor event, but it was "before" the construction of the 6½ Avenue. The parade was on March 15, 2012. At that time, the spaces are not officially connected with stop signs and name, etc. It was dubbed by the group as "Holly Whyte Way". At the time, they were just connected POPS spaces. The parade was before the Community Board 5's transportation committee voted to support the project on March 26, 2012. That was before NYCDOT started any construction. Z22 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

What board?[edit]

The article currently says,

The idea was presented to the board and the board in turn sent a formal request to New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) in May 2011.

What board? Also, citation needed, once clarified, please!--FeralOink (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I read the reference article from The Observer and inserted the information. "Board" refers to NYC Manhattan Community Board 5, not the Friends of POP board.--FeralOink (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 6½ Avenue. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

Source is dated 2012, nearly a decade ago. Perhaps drivers are used to the stop signs by now? Delete section? Martindo (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:6½_Avenue&oldid=1197085100"