Jump to content

Talk:Chelsea, Manhattan

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

"Chelsea takes its name from the Federal house"

[edit]

I have to assume that by this "Chelsea takes its name from the Federal house..." the author meant that CC Moore's birthplace was a Federal-style house named Chelsea? I will edit the article. Quill 02:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Federal already means "Federal style," as Colonial means "in the Georgian style of the colonies." There had been an earlier, Colonial farmhouse, but it didn't have a name. Wetman 02:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The current incarnation of the sentence is unclear for me.
"Chelsea takes its name from the Federal-style house of the Moore family, named after Chelsea, the manor of Sir Thomas More on which the borough in London has been built."
The Moore family (which one?) is named after a manor? Xiner 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clement C. Moore

[edit]

"The house was the birthplace of Clement Clarke Moore, who is more often credited with "A Visit From St. Nicholas"— which he may have authored— than with the first Greek and Hebrew lexicons printed in the United States, which he certainly authored."

Moore, was born in Newtown (now Elmhurst), NY. His house stood until 1933 in which it was demolished when building the subway. On the site of his former home is Moore Homestead Park. He moved to Chelsea after his marriage to his wife.

On The Waterfront

[edit]

I'm not the one who zapped On the Waterfront. But it probably should be. It really jumps off as inaccurate (unless there's a citation). The movie was filmed in Hoboken and is based on Red Hook, Brooklyn (the original title was "The Hook"). There's lots of confusion when folks use the term New York waterfront. The New York waterfront refers to New York Harbor and so can be New Jersey or New York. By 1953 when the film was made, commercial freight in Manhattan was well into its decline (although Brooklyn continued to operate). Here's an article on the movie: http://www.filmsite.org/onth.html

Americasroof 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HIV

[edit]

"The HIV rate in Chelsea is twenty five percent"

Is this correct? That's as high as Sub-Saharan Africa, which is generally considered to be the worst affected area in the world (by a considerable margin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.156.187 (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the above statistic is correct,but I know HIV infection in Chelsea is higher the then national average sad but true.74.73.176.161 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely false; perhaps it's in quotes to signify irony. Although some reports suggested up to half of gay men in certain neighborhoods had HIV, gay men have never even constituted twenty-five percent of the population in Chelsea. Notably, the fabricator neither references nor signs their post. Stephenrumson (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is no longer in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

A simple MAP would help. 192.122.237.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A map of what? The neighborhood?, the historic district(s)? Including points of interest or just streets?

Generally, finding usable (i.e. not copyrighted) maps is not easy. Sounds simple, but it ain't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chelsea, Manhattan. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor images?

[edit]
Why is it a "poor" images? This is what the building above actually looks like in the evening and is also show the street, a local restaurant and more). And the wall is straight (perspective correction).
This is what the building above actually looks like, from about the same angle. Other images of it can be see at commons:Category:London Terrace Most of those convey what the building actually looks like

I don't really understand the edit or comment here. The images has good composition, resolution and composition. "Poor" is just a very subjective and random opinion. The quality is higher when most images in the article, compare with for example Cushman Row West 20th.jpg (perspective distortion, overexposed sky), Highline_519_and_HL23.jpg (perspective distortion, tight crop), IAC night jeh.jpg (perspective distortion, overall low quality with strong noise, tight crop) or General Theological Seminary Desmond Tutu Center.jpg (tight crop, perspective distortion, bad wb, overexposed sky). Both the building (London Terrace) (mentioned in the section) and the street 10th avenue is very relevant for the article.--ArildV (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is dark, and the building is unidentifable. The building is also the subject of a clear, straightforward image later in the article, so there is no need for a repeat. We don't need "artsy" images on Wikipedia, we need images that clearly represent their subject matter. Jim Henderson's image of the IAC building manages to be both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's just nonsense, the building is not unidentifiable (you need to check your display). The images have a high educational value, showing both the building and streets. And please stop using suppression techniques and guilt by association arguments like "we dont need artsy images". I have uploaded thousands of high quality and high educational images to Wikimedia. The images clearly represent the building and the streets at night.--ArildV (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And my display is fine, thank you. The matter is simple, your criteria for what is a "good" image is not Wikipedia's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suppression techniques is a poor substitute for argument. --ArildV (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck are "suppression techniques"?
Your image is not suitable for the article, and does not enhance it. Strips of car lgiths and a hulking dark mass of a building shows nothing to our readers. We are an encyclopedia, not a photographic art gallery, and our images, like our text, should convey information to them. We need straight-forward, identifiable images, just as we need straight-forward and understandable writing, and not florid prosody.
Your image has virtually no information in it, it could have been taken at almost any Manhattan intersection. The buildings are unidentifiable (compare with the photo of the building later in the article, which shows what it actually looks like) and no information about 10th Avenue is conveyed, except that cars have lights they use at night which will make streaks on a long exposure.
I'm glad that you've been so wonderfully honored at Commons for your photography, but that's not relevant here: their criteria are not ours. Ours are what I've outlines above, and your image does not fulfill them. I'm sorry if that hurts your ego, but that is the fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, a poor quality (dark and washed out) image is a poor quality image. And I don't see the point of it anyway. We have a perfectly good picture of London Terrace already in the article. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Master suppression techniques. And you are just repeating the the same false statement (the building is not unidentifiable or a "dark mass). As a substitute for argument, you are trying to teach me about wikipedia (I know Wikipedia). You don't hurt me, your hurt Wikipedia.--ArildV (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinions about me, however wrong they are, but they don't change the fact that the image is not suitable for the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a fact, is your very personal opinion. And your argument is a false statement (unidentifiable) and patronizing comments.--ArildV (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your personal feelings, the image is not suitable, for the reasons outlined above. You've noted, I hope, that the only other editor to comment here agrees? [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Personal feelings", again patronizing comments as a substitute for arguments. And another editor disagree.--ArildV (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image adds variety, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, as it is the only night shot in the article. Photos taken at night are generally of a lower quality, though this particular image is well done and a tripod was obviously used. It should remain in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only night shot? Look again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So hey I see the redundancy between the images. I see how the night one is artsy with the exposure, but for a night photo, long exposure is necessary/beneficial. The day photo is slightly overexposed (as viewed on my monitor - typically a darker monitor too). The night photo shows some cafe night life I can appreciate. It's also framed better and the streets are clearer due to exposure/no big bus. Overall I sorta prefer the night one, as a photographer and for the encyclopedic value of the nightlife. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks more washed out than artsy. And, does a single restaurant with no other street life really qualify as representative of "nightlife"? I don't think so. Do we just want to include an image "because it's there"?--regentspark (comment) 13:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which one do you think is overexposed (washed out)? And many notable and august paintings of outdoor/nighttime dining only feature solely one business. If Vincent Van Gogh found it emblematic of dining nightlife, how can you disagree? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True (about Vinne). But, we're an encyclopedia not an art gallery. And, you did say "encyclopedic value of the nightlife". This image is not at all representative of the nightlife. What it says is that there is almost no nightlife (one restaurant, no pedestrians, no street life except for a few cars). Might as well be a shot of a street corner in LA. --regentspark (comment) 15:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant; I find the fact that a random street corner has so many people dining at so late is very representative. I'm done here, more things to move on to, I'll agree to disagree. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArildV, Ɱ, and Magnolia677: See recent updates. Filetime (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

We shouldn't be fiddling around with image sizes, especially as the results one sees on their own screen / browser combinations may not match other users. I also fail to see why we should be including external links to various neighborhood guides, which should either be integrated into the article as references or simply removed.

In terms of the image of London Terrace, I agree that the early evening picture leaves out too much details. The daytime shot provided in the section above would be a better choice.

Discuss. Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chelsea, Manhattan. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea's eastern boundary

[edit]

Let me preface this by stating that I understand that Manhattan neighborhood boundaries are generally unofficial and somewhat fluid. That said, the generally accepted boundaries of a neighborhood should be stated. If there is a strong general consensus as to a boundary, it should be used.

I take issue with referring to Chelsea's eastern boundary as "either Sixth Avenue or Fifth Avenue." Here are the reasons:

  • For decades, the New York Times has consistently expressed that Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Avenue) is Chelsea's rough eastern boundary. The lone Times "Living In Chelsea" report that referred to Fifth Avenue as its rough eastern boundary is almost 40 years old. This is the only source cited for that view. If this were still regarded by the Times as the rough eastern boundary of Chelsea, it would have referred to it again in the several Living In reports published since then. (Note: That 1982 article corresponds with a journalist's history of Chelsea's borders, showing that the view of its boundaries were most expansive in the late 1970s but have long since retreated to Sixth Avenue.)

All New York Times Living In Chelsea reports published more recently have set Sixth Avenue as its rough eastern boundary. See below:

I propose referring to Sixth Avenue (not "either Sixth Avenue or Fifth Avenue") as Chelsea's rough eastern boundary.

Precision123 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Reference - Joni Mitchell

[edit]

I believe Joni Mitchell's song "Chelsea Morning" recorded in 1969 is about waking up in this district on a beautiful spring morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siglo2 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The French District

[edit]

Much of Chelsea was a part of the French district, where most of the French immigrants lived. 2603:7080:953D:2470:8841:E4E7:7197:2758 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea,_Manhattan&oldid=1206403974"