Talk:Times Square

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	NYC Portal This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

--198.188.169.157 15:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I'd love to find the earliest citation on calling it "Disneyfied". I can cite Vanessa Letts using it in the New Statesman of August 1, 1997. Does someone have something earlier?

Also, in terms of preferring it the way it was, maybe we should cite Joe Jackson? "The smoking ban is just one part of the strangulation of New York's night life -- a crackdown on everything from topless bars to noise -- which began under Rudolph Giuliani and has continued under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Many of us preferred the old X-rated Times Square to the new "Disneyfied" version. Besides, shouldn't a great city be able to tolerate a red-light district?" [1]

Jmabel | Talk 01:07, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

- I did a quick search on the New York Times website under "Times Square" and "Disneyfied." The oldest match is from December 1995. --Jleon 20:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 New Year's Eve in Times Square 2 Say cheese. 3 Older pics 4 Location 5 Influences 6 Hi Bob. 7 Hi Again Bob 8 No mention of George M. Cohan 9 One of the pics is wrong 10 Trafalgar Square? 11 Popular culture section

[edit] New Year's Eve in Times Square

Intially I screwed up the article's history section when trying to make it a more straightforwardly chronological read. I was simply going to revert it, but since I had recently read the WP:BB page, I figured I would have a stab at it. I would be interested in feedback. -- milovoo 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On a quick read I think those changes look great. Thanks for doing that. --TheOtherBob 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Say cheese.

Is Times Square the most photographed location on earth? I remember hearing that it was... somewhere. ParkingStones

- I would imagine that is virtually impossible to quantify, but we could certainly say it is one of the most photographed locations on earth. --Jleon 20:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Older pics

Does anyone know of any fair-use sites that have images of Times Square in older periods, such as the 70s? I think this article would be better if there were older pics instead of all recent ones. Ohyeahmormons 21:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

It consists of the blocks between 6th and 9th Avenues from east to west and 39th and 52nd Streets from south to north

I disagree with this description. I think it would be better to say that the Square itself properly consists of the area along Broadway and Seventh Avenue from 42nd to 47th Streets, and that the term "Times Square" is also the name of a neighborhood as described above. What do others think? --Keeves 14:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - Times Square is primarily a place, not a neighborhood. For example, I live around 9th and 43rd - but I don't live in "Times Square." If I told someone I lived in Times Square, they'd think I lived on 42nd and Broadway, because Times Square most often refers to the actual square - where the ball drops. Times Square is a square of physical space like Red Square or Trafalgar Square. It isn't "square," per se, but it is definitely a physical space. So I agree that it should be revised - it's fair to say that the surrounding area is sometimes referred to as Times Square or the "Times Square Area," but the term "Times Square" most often refers to the actual square.

While we are on the subject, it is probably not accurate to say that in the US, "a city 'square' typically refers to a road intersection in a built-up commercial/residential urban locale." First, that would mean thousands of squares in Manhattan - every intersection would be one. Second, many squares in the US are more or less rural - most small towns have a town square but are not built-up or urban. And, third, I think the road intersections are not central to it being a "square" - think of Union Square or Madison Square Park, which are primarily parks. I think square in the U.S. probably means the same thing as it does elsewhere - an open space where pedestrians can congregate. Times Square just happens to have two big roads running through it. --TheOtherBob 05:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! --Keeves 01:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

I deleted the section on influences. First, it's not clear that Times Square had an influence on the places listed (for example, Piccadilly Circus predates Times Square by about 70 years, and several of the listed places were more "streets" than intersections). But more importantly, that section seemed to me to be original research, in that it seems like it is someone's opinion about places that seem "similar" to Times Square. However, if there is, for example, a textbook or newspaper article that compared those places and came to the conclusion that Times Square influenced their design, then this section should go back in - I'm certainly not opposed to that. Also, if you don't think this counts as original research, feel free to say so - I could easily be wrong. --TheOtherBob 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Bob.

I have been to all of those places first hand, and I feel that they are deeply linked in terms of influence. It is worth noting because those areas so similiar. If you don't believe me, I suggest you travel.

The article starts out: Like Red Square in Moscow, Trafalgar Square in London, or Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Times Square is an open space where pedestrians can congregate. It was named after the one-time headquarters of The New York Times, and is located in the borough of Manhattan, New York City, USA, along Broadway and Seventh Avenue, from 42nd to 47th Streets.

---

I think Since the page references Moscow's Red Square and Tianemen Square(2 places I've also been to) it should reference those places I listed. The fact is that Time Square is more of a shopping district than a "place of gathering". Regardless of what you might claim. It's more influenced / similiar to places like Shibuya than it is Moscow's Red Square.

Here is a picture of Shibuya to see the similiarity http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Shibuya_tokyo.jpg

Here is Moscow's red square: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~James.Popple/photographs/gallery-05/4x6/red-square-1994.jpg

I think you'd have to be brain dead to argue that one..

I am not sure how you could bring up this relationship Time Square has to other places, and I could find several citations for Dundas Square / Hong Kong. I think it is so obvious that it is stupidity not to show the relationship. Oh, and Shibuya is an district, but also an intersection, the most busy intersection in the world. Shibuya probably influenced Times Square more then the reverse btw. Nanjing Road is a street, but it is pedestrian only, and highly similiar to other cities tourist attractions, such as Time Square

However I will respect your choice to exclude my "original research". I guess its a sign that I am too lazy to write a book ;)

Well, I do travel - and I live down the street from Times Square (which, I might add, is not really a shopping district - you can buy a broken watch, a cup of coffee, or go to Toys R' Us, but other than that it's just a place to look at signs, work, pass through, or eat at "Bubba Gump's."). Here's the problem - there's a difference between "influence" and "similar." Influence means that one of the places contributed to the design, development, etc. of the other. Similarity means that they are...well, similar. So it could be right that these things are similar to each other, but not right that one influenced the other. You're right that these other districts may have some similarities to Times Square - and it might even make sense to put them in the "see also" area of the article (though I would be careful not to make this a list of "places I've been" rather than a true list of "places similar to Times Square.") But did they influence Times Square or vice versa? Generally I'd say no. (It's remotely possible that Shibuya, for example, influenced Times Square, but the chronology seems off.) But more importantly, a claim of such influence requires, you know, something more authoritative than "I visited both places, and think they look similar." So that's why I removed it - whether that was brain dead or not, I won't comment on. :-P --TheOtherBob 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Again Bob

Rather then delete the entire section you should do the "right thing" and change the word influence to similiar. Rather than being a wiki squatter who just deletes anything which falls on "his page"

Don't you think? Or move it down to a different section.

I think your references to Trafalgar Square, Red Square, Tiananmen Square etc should be removed. They are not even remotely similiar or related. You use the word "Like" which suggests similiarity:

"Like Red Square in Moscow, Trafalgar Square in London, or Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Times Square is an open space where pedestrians can congregate."

If you want to make comparisons to those places I suggest you edit Union Square - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Square_(New_York_City).

And I will also respond to your comment that Time Square is not a shopping/entertainment/tourist district:

If that is NOT the case, excluding shopping malls - explain why Time Square, and the immediate surrounding area has the most tier-1 commercial/retail outlets per square meter on the entire eastern seaboard?

For someone who lives "down the street" you sure seem to ignore to all of the other restaurants, clothing shops, chocolate stores, electronics, music and street vendors you pass on a daily basis.

Ok, I'm trying to assume good faith, and you may well not have intended this, but much of your comment felt like a personal attack. Obviously Wikipedia is a cooperative venture, and there's no reason to get upset over changes. I tried to make light of your "brain dead" and "stupidity" comments earlier, but I really feel like you may need to cool down, assume good faith, and not be so aggressive when things get edited in a way that you disagree with.

In any event, I'm not entirely sure that the places you listed are even "similar" - I encouraged you to try to re-write to choose similar places (preferably citably similar places), and suggested that a good place to do that would be in the "See Also" section. I don't personally see any support for the idea that those places are similar (and I am concerned that they could be original research - i.e. places you visited and thought looked similar). But that's just my opinion. If you disagree and think these places are similar and should be included, you should add them to the appropriate section. (That's no guarantee, though, that others won't then edit or even delete them if they think they're not similar - and I would ask you to assume good faith when they do.)

If you leave the edit up to me, though, I won't include any of them - because I am of the opinion that they should be left out of the article. If you think that's "wiki-squatting" or whatever else...ok. I don't really see a need to respond to that.

To your second point, feel free to remove the "Like Red Square in Moscow, Trafalgar Square in London, or Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Times Square is an open space where pedestrians can congregate." That's not my addition - if I remember correctly, when I came across this article it essentially said that *unlike* Red Square, etc., Times Square was *not* a place where pedestrians congregate (I don't remember exactly what it said, but it was something like that). Pedestrians do congregate in Times Square, so I suggested that the language be changed to make it more accurate. If you think it's better to just delete that statement entirely, please feel free to do so. I assume you'd be making that change to make the article better, and you should always be bold in making changes that you think make articles better.

To your next point - look, it's entirely rhetorical, so I'm not going to debate the number of retailers per block or whether restaurants count as "retail." I just don't think it matters.

One final note - for everyone's benefit, please sign your comments with four "tildes." Thanks.--TheOtherBob 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of George M. Cohan

Perhaps there should be a mention of and a link to the fact that there is a statue of George M. Cohan, the father of "American musical theater" in Times Square. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.191.24.143 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] One of the pics is wrong

The second pic under the heading Times Square Today (right after the times square pano) is not in Times Square. That is a pic of the intersection of 34th and 7th. -mister_okay

I think you're right - that Foot Action is next to Penn Station, right? Good catch. --TheOtherBob 15:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Penn station is below that entire block. I'm definitely sure about that because I commuted through Penn station everyday. -mister_okay

[edit] Trafalgar Square?

Does Trafalgar Square in London really have iconic, world landmark status? If I were asked to offer a London analogy for Times Square, I would probably choose Leicester Square or Piccadilly Circus, though I don't think that either of these is an iconic world landmark either. (I spent most of my childhood in London and currently live in New York). Bwithh 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture section

I removed the popular culture section. It was totally degenerate. It consisted of some fifteen seemingly random references to the appearance of Times Square in some form of media. Examples:

In the film X, a scene was shot in TS.

Part of the plot of fictional work takes place at TS

Clearly this is just an indiscriminate collection of information, none of it bearing any relevance to Times Square. Dr bab 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with you that this may be a trivia section passing off as a separate, legitimate section. However, I won't say all of the content is worthless and unencyclopaedic. It is a fact that Times Square is often portrayed in popular culture, hence it is a noteworthy characteristic. The information in the section could be organised better and trimmed, but to remove all of it would be overdoing it. Chensiyuan 03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Times Square is often portrayed in popular culture, and a section on this fact could therefore be a legitimate part of this section. As it stands now however, it is little more than a random list with an infinite number of potential entries. What inclusion-criteria should we have?

It seems that we disagree about the worthlessness/worthfulness of most of the items presently included in this section. While I respect your opinion, I feel certain items are clearly not relevant or important. A good indication of relevance in cases like this can be gained by asking whether a reference is important enough to be mentioned in the article on the particular popular work. For example, the article on Good Morning America mentions in its opening paragraph that it is produced live from Times Square. Clearly Times Square is relevant to Good Morning America. It does not immedeately follow that Good Morning America is relevant or important to Times Square. There are several examples where A can be important to B without B being important to A. Such cases will therefore be open to debate.

An example from the different side of the spectrum: The song My Boo, which does not mention Times Square at all. Evidently, Times Square is unimportant and unrelevant to this song. Since Times Square is so famous in its own right, it is definately not relevant that one scene from an otherwise unrelated music video is shot there?

A section on popular culture references should be written in prose form, on the general impact of Times Square, perhaps with a few well referenced examples. This would be a section that improves the article as a whole. The section as it stands now severely lowers the standard of the article, has several unsourced and unrelevant entries, and invites listcruft: The section has every potential to grow as people keep adding appearances of Times Square in video games, simpsons episodes, comic books etc.

My decision to remove the whole thing was based upon my above arguments, and my view that the section in its current form, even if the most irrelevant points are removed, does nothing but lower the standard of the article and tells nothing of the general impact of Times Square in popular culture apart from stating that it "has been featured countless times". In my view the course to take was therefore to delete everything and leave this section out, until someone writes a proper non-list section on this.

Dr bab 11:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC).