Talk:34th Street (Manhattan)

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Streets High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

I don't know - does the Santa Claus parade still go down 34th St or was just Macy's on 34th Street in the movie?

Well... the parade does not really "go down" 34th Street, and never did. The route (with a few minor detours) is essentially down Central Park West until it meets Broadway, and then down Broadway ... ending at 34th St (at the original Macy's store). Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it does go down 34th Street, for one block. The normal route (excluding 2020 when it was shortened due to COVID-19) is that the parade begins on Central Park West somewhere north of the Museum of Natural History, without the balloons; the balloons (which are inflated on 77th Street) join the rest of the parade at the intersection of 77th Street and Central Park West; it travels south on Central Park West as far as Columbus Circle (59th Street), where it makes a slight left onto Broadway; travels mostly on Broadway from 59th Street to 34th Street (Broadway no longer runs straight through due to reconfiguration of Times Square); turns sharply onto 34th Street, pauses to perform in front of Macy's Herald Square, and then ends with leaving that performance space.47.139.40.146 (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Houston Street (Manhattan) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precision

If this street is the primary topic for "34th Street", it does not need the qualifier. If this street is not the primary topic for "34th Street", 34th Street should not redirect here. See WP:PRECISION. (Unless the claim is that "34th Street (Manhattan)" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the street, in which case the article text needs to updated.)-- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an argument that this specific 34th street is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For one thing, this is the specific 34th Street referred to in the title of the movie Miracle on 34th Street. Yes, there are many other 34th Streets around the world... but this one stands out as being the most well known. I would drop the disambiguation, and create a 34th Street (disambiguation) page to direct readers to the articles on other 34th streets. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered streets, with extremely rare exceptions, such as Fifth Avenue, should always be disambiguated. The rule of thumb should be if you drop the name into a random conversation with a random person at a random place in the world, would they know what you're talking about. 34th Street doesn't make that cut, and being in the title of one film (or two, if you count the remake) doesn't do the job. BMK (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then the unqualified name should be the disambiguation page, since none of the topics is clearly primary. Simple. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem with that. BMK (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that change. BMK (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

I noticed that my recent edit to the article was reverted by Beyond My Ken without an edit summary being left. I enquired as to why on his or her talk page (I'm using a diff as my message has since been removed) but was told, "In my judgment, it did not improve the article. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the talk page."

Given that I do not know with what I would disagree since I have not been told with what part of the edit Beyond My Ken takes issue, I suppose I'll ask the user the same question again here: May I ask why the edit was reverted? Graham (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article was better before your edit than it was after your edit. Seems pretty clear to me. BMK (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, I think there were four changes made. With which of those do you take issue? Graham (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, all of them. BMK (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thrice now I have asked what your concerns are and all you keep saying is that they "did not improve the article" without offering any clarification. While I am doing my best to assume good faith, I can't help but feel you are being intentionally uncooperative. Would it help if we went through the changes one by one perhaps? What concerns do you have about the insertion of a link to Portal:U.S. roads in an article about an American road? Graham (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we're not doing this. Please drop this nonsense and go improve an article. BMK (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3O Request declined Greetings, Graham and BMK. Graham had posted a third opinion request; unfortunately, I have to decline it because there has not been enough discussion of the disputed content. In this case, the matter is hardly large enough to begin an RFC or a section at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Since both of you are interested in improving the article, I do think you should discuss why those changes should or should not be made; in any case, that will be the prerequisite for any dispute resolution. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to offer s similar closure. However, I will add one comment. Be civil. The discussion above,what there was, which was not enough for a third opinion, was not always civil. There may be a belief that civility in Wikipedia is sometimes optional. It is never optional. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]