Talk:Houston Street

Spelling

When one reads that the unusual pronunciation is in fact due to being named after William Houstoun, one wonders the reason for the difference in the spelling of the street and the person. Also, is there a particular reason why Houstoun should be pronounced differently than Houston? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.76 (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropped:

Houston County, Georgia is also named for William Houstoun.

Actually, according to the Georgia county's official website, it is named for Ga. governor John Houstoun. Are the two men related? Wish I had time to check... Ellsworth 21:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Even though Houston Street is readable like house, but i think this is NYC people's dialect, and I think it was derived from Sam Houston. as u can see in ko.wiki.x.io, it says like Huston Street like huge like city of Houston, Texas.-ITartle (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

i think both "휴스턴" and "하우스튼" are correct - Houston Street (H Street's footprints) October 17th, 2010 21:06

Downtown?

The entry currently says this: "Houston Street is a large thoroughfare running east - west north of the downtown area of the borough of Manhattan..."

Aside from the fact that the sequence of words "east west north" is inherently difficult, would anyone like to defend the assertion that "downtown" in New York City begins at Houston Street? My personal downtown starts somewhere between 14th and 23rd.

I agree with you. I'm not sure I'd describe anything higher than 14th st as being a "downtown" neighborhood, but Greenwich Village is unarguably downtown, even though it's north of Houston. By the way, the Lower Manhattan article states that "'Lower Manhattan' and 'Downtown' are often roughly synonymous," but I don't buy this at all. To me, Lower Manhattan means below Canal--and especially the Financial District. Downtown much more generally refers to the southern portion of the island.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, downtown has never meant above 14th to anyone I know. Although I don't have anything to back me up off-the-cuff, In my five years living here Dowtown signified below 14th Street. --DavidShankBone 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to work up a useful rephrasing for the lead sentence there. - Corporal Tunnel 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it's not even true that it's one block south of First Street, except for that little bit of it between First Avenue and Bowery. - Corporal Tunnel 15:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I've entered a proposed new intro paragraph, which I think is more accurate and concise, and which solves the "east-west north" word sequence problem. Speaking of which, is there a compelling reason to Wiki-link to "east" and "west" in this context? Isn't that a bit silly? I'm leaving it for now because that's the way it was when I came to it, but there are plenty of links in there already - it may be more distracting than useful. - Corporal Tunnel 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article's first paragraph is much better and more accurate now. I like it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected recent edit on the street grid. Despite the Wiki article on the subject, the numeric street grid does not start at 1st Street and Avenue B. There is no 1st Street at Avenue B; 1st starts at Avenue A. The 1811 plan may have been drawn for Avenue B, but any sliver of 1st that might have been there initially was presumably lost when Houston Street was widened. I'm not really sure how useful this information is, as compared to the original statement that the grid starts immediately north of Houston, but whatever - should be fine as is. - Corporal Tunnel 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Keith Haring homage on Houston Street 3.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Keith Haring homage on Houston Street 3.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've swapped the image for another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Keith Haring homage on Houston Street 2.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Keith Haring homage on Houston Street 2.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move named streets only -- tariqabjotu 03:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

---

• Houston Street (Manhattan) → Houston Street
• Vesey Street (Manhattan) → Vesey Street
• Doyers Street (Manhattan) → Doyers Street
• Broome Street (Manhattan) → Broome Street
• Rivington Street (Manhattan) → Rivington Street
• Essex Street (Manhattan) → Essex Street
• Mott Street (Manhattan) → Mott Street
• Allen Street (Manhattan) → Allen Street
• Forsyth Street (Manhattan) → Forsyth Street
• Centre Market Place (Manhattan) → Centre Market Place
• Lafayette Street (Manhattan) → Lafayette Street
• Eighth Avenue (Manhattan) → Eighth Avenue
• Tenth Avenue (Manhattan) → Tenth Avenue
• 13th Avenue (Manhattan) → 13th Avenue
• Avenue A (Manhattan) → Avenue A
• Avenue B (Manhattan) → Avenue B
• Avenue C (Manhattan) → Avenue C
• 4th Street (Manhattan) → 4th Street
• 34th Street (Manhattan) → 34th Street
• 52nd Street (Manhattan) → 52nd Street
• 53rd Street (Manhattan) → 53rd Street
• 66th Street (Manhattan) → 66th Street
• 72nd Street (Manhattan) → 72nd Street
• 89th Street (Manhattan) → 89th Street
• 93rd Street (Manhattan) → 93rd Street
• 110th Street (Manhattan) → 110th Street
• 116th Street (Manhattan) → 116th Street
• 181st Street (Manhattan) → 181st Street
• Astor Place (Manhattan) → Astor Place
• Greenwich Avenue (Manhattan) → Greenwich Avenue
• Sixth and a Half Avenue (Manhattan) → Sixth and a Half Avenue
• Dyer Avenue (Manhattan) → Dyer Avenue
• Audubon Avenue (Manhattan) → Audubon Avenue
• Saint Nicholas Avenue (Manhattan) → Saint Nicholas Avenue
• Fort Washington Avenue (Manhattan) → Fort Washington Avenue
• Cabrini Boulevard (Manhattan) → Cabrini Boulevard

– Disambiguation is unnecessary, all of the target pages redirect to the current pages. All of these are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for their names; there are no other streets with an identical name that are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Note that the recent RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#RfC:_US_city_names only applies to cities, not streets. See also a similar discussion at Talk:Lexington Avenue. –sumone10154^(talk) 20:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Manhattan streets are disproportionately represented on Wikipedia, perhaps in part because the New York Times has local coverage, making notability easy to establish. But there are many cities with similarly named streets, especially the numbered ones. Wikipedia tries to take a world view of subjects. Keeping the disambiguation will prevent future naming conflicts. It also serves the very useful purpose of letting a reader who is searching for a street by name know that the article deals with the Manhattan location. For example, when I do a Google search on "4th Street," the second line that pops up says "4th Street (Manhattan) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." I think that is very desirable: If that is the 4th Street I want, I can go there, if it isn't I'm saved the trouble. This also works in the Wikipedia search box. Since we always have (or should have) redirects without the disambiguation, there is no burden on the reader. The current convention does not seem to be broken, so I see no need to fix it.--agr (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the other numeric streets are using digits, why doesn't 10th, 8th? -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is generally the case in Manhattan that avenue numbers are spelled out (i.e. "Seventh") which street numbers use numerals (i.e. "59th Street"). This may be to help avoid confusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems like a lot of fuss for no particular reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. agr's argument is convincing. Pburka (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I could be convinced of this move for most of the named streets, but certainly not the numbered ones, and probably not the lettered avenues. Pburka (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. New Yorkers tend to be geocentric. Contrary to belief other cities have a Tenth Avenue, or a 53rd Street. There are some NYC streets that are clearly primary topics, but all of them? Apteva (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think moving is a good idea. At the very least, the numbered streets should not be moved. There are just too many places in the world that have notable numbered streets that don't have their own articles yet. To me the only numbered street that I always think of Manhattan without hesitation is the 42nd Street. For other numbered streets, there are no primary topics really. Z22 (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the recent outcome of Lexington Avenue. New Yorkers may be geocentric, but that's not an argument for disambiguating against nonexistent articles. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If [[Name]] redirects to [[Name (disambiguator)]], then, with few if any exceptions, [[Name (disambiguator)]] should be moved to [[Name]]. I see no reason for exceptions in any of these cases. A title of [[Name (disambiguator)]] with [[Name]] redirecting to it is the epitome of unnecessary disambiguation.

  Now, if there is another notable topic with that name (as indicated by the existence of a WP article about that topic), that's a different story, and disambiguation may be called for. But when we have no other articles about topics with that name? No way should the title be disambiguated. Otherwise we might as well start renaming most of our articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment According to WP:TITLE "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." With occasional exceptions, street names are too ambiguous to stand by themselves. There are many other subjects on Wikipedia where disambiguation notation is systematically used to clarify the scope of article titles even when no current conflict exists. This is particularly true when many small articles are clustered around a larger topic. For example, there are a couple of thousand articles in Category:Rapid transit stations in the United States that are titled this way (see Category:CTA Purple Line stations for specific examples). Many Wikipedia editors apparently find this a useful approach and our editing guidelines generally try follow what is actually done in practice.--agr (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – this is a good example of how a literal narrow minimalist interpretation of WP:TITLE leads to ridiculous outcome, like the proposal that our encyclopedia should have articles titled by ambiguous street names and not say in which city they mean. Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support; completely unnecessary disambiguation. Disambiguation is not to be used for context absent conflicting article titles. Powers ^T 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Powers. We do not disambiguate to "prevent future naming conflicts" that may never come. Dohn joe (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Since this RM covers a large number of suggested changes, I'd like to suggest that it not be closed before the normal 7 days has elapsed, that the closing be by an admin, and that the closing admin should take into account the possible policy implications of any large-scale change. Also, there is not necessity that this be an all-or-nothing-at-all situation. Some of the suggested moves may make sense, while others (specifically the numbered street and avenue names) may not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just looking at the number streets here are the google hits for each, and only checking the first page (and ignoring all Wikipedia entries): Apteva (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • 4th Street 18,200,000 - 8/9 are not Manhattan
    • 34th Street 6,900,000 - 5/5 are not Manhattan
    • 52nd Street 2,840,000 - all are Manhattan
    • 53rd Street 1,710,000 - 4/9 are not Manhattan (one is nearby Brooklyn)
    • 66th Street 1,200,000 - 4/4 are not Manhattan
    • 72nd Street 1,470,000 - 1/7 is not Manhattan
    • 89th Street 640,000 - all are Manhattan
    • 93rd Street 503,000 - 4/4 are not Manhattan
    • 110th Street 7,380,000 - all are Manhattan
    • 116th Street 765,000 - 3/6 are not Manhattan
    • 181st Street 194,000 - all are Manhattan

      By ignoring Wikipedia entries, you're ignoring the only results that should matter when it comes to whether disambiguation is needed or not. Powers ^T 14:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

      The reason for ignoring the wikipedia entries is because the question is of all of the uses of a street on the Internet, how many are for the street in Manhattan and how many are for the street in some other city? Since wikipedia only has an article on the street in Manhattan for all of the above that entry would falsely skew the results if it was included. Apteva (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

      Your statement seems to directly contradict WP:PRIMARYWP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That guideline specifically recommends using a Google search to determine whether a primary topic exists. Pburka (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

      Google rankings can be used to obtain a list of the topics readers are likely to be searching for. Page view numbers may then be obtained for each relevant article to determine which of these, if any, may be selected as primary. It an article gets more than 50 percent of the relevant traffic, it is primary by use. This will always be the case if there is only one relevant article. Kauffner (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Houston Street should be removed from this list. Wikipedia already had a Houston Street (San Antonio) article and I've created a Houston Street (Dallas) stub. I've changed Houston Street to be a dab page. Pburka (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  I reverted that move. The Manhattan street is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Houston Street". A comparison of Google Books results show 9,800 results for "Houston Street" + "San Antonio", and 10,500 results for "Houston Street" + "Dallas" - but 113,000 results for "Houston Street" + "New York". That's 85% of the combined results. Dohn joe (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  Moving it to Houston Street (disambiguation) as you did makes sense. Pburka (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Use no more precision than necessary, per WP:PRECISION. The purpose of disambiguation is to help readers find the article they are seeking, not to distinguish from topics that we do not have articles about. Primary topic is not an award for outstanding notability. A title should tell the reader the actual name of the subject, to the extent this is technically possible. Disambiguation cruft in large type across top of an article looks ugly and unprofessional. What city is the street in? Check the opening sentence. Kauffner (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that 4th Street is "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article." Do you? Pburka (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Within the scope of Wikipedia articles, yes. Powers ^T 18:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The naming policy does not restrict "unambiguously" to "Within the scope of Wikipedia articles." More to the point, I think we might look to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation for guidance. It says: "... The disambiguation tag provides context to the reader, and helps uniquely identify places when multiple places share the same name. The following general principles apply to such tags: In some cases, including most towns in the United States, it is conventional to add such a tag even when it is not strictly needed for disambiguation purposes. ..." There is also a discussion in that guideline under "United States" that says: "Neighborhoods within New York City have been identified by the standard neighborhood, borough, where 'borough' is one of the five boroughs: Brooklyn, The Bronx, Manhattan, Queens or Staten Island." There is, I think, a reasonable parallel between a neighborhood and a notable street. That suggests renaming the articles in question to, e.g. 4th Street, Manhattan, which would be acceptable to me.--agr (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "neighborhood, borough" is only used where disambiguation is needed, as in Jamaica, Queens. In contrast, see SoHo (where disambiguation is accomplished by way of the unique capitalization) or Brighton Beach (where disambiguation is not needed at all). Powers ^T 04:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't see how disambiguating SoHo in NYC from the area in London by way of capitalization helps our readers find what they are looking for. That capitalization is not ubiquitous see e.g. http://nymag.com/realestate/articles/neighborhoods/soho.htm, nor should we expect a reader to know it. But the main point of my comment is that our guideline on geographic names says "The disambiguation tag provides context to the reader, and helps uniquely identify places when multiple places share the same name." That is certainly the situation with most street names.--agr (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
        • We don't expect a reader to know that SoHo is CamelCased, which is why we have a convenient link in the hatnote on Soho. The point is that there's no advantage to titling the article SoHo, Manhattan, because SoHo would still redirect there and there'd still be a hatnote on Soho pointing to it. Likewise, there's no point in titling an article Houston Street, Manhattan because Houston Street would redirect there and there's no other article to which we could direct readers. Powers ^T 02:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
          • When you say there's "no point" or "no advantage", you're taking a very narrow view of what titles are for. They are also supposed to precisely indicate the topic, so it's an advantage when they do; even if other Houston Streets don't have articles yet. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Precise, yes, but only as precise as necessary to uniquely identify the topic within the encyclopedia. It is not the job of our article titles to fully contextualize their topics. There are no doubt thousands of people in the world named "Timothy West", but only one of them has an article on Wikipedia, so we don't feel the need to fully contextualize his name with "(English actor)". Likewise, there are dozens or hundreds of "34th Street"s in the world, but only one of them has an article, so there's no need to fully contextualize its name in our article title. Powers ^T 23:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
              • only as precise as necessary to uniquely identify the topic within the encyclopedia has never been a widely accepted interpretation, in spite of Born2cycle's strenuous efforts to get it accepted as such. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
                • Considering how rarely we use unnecessary disambiguation, I'd say it's the only possible interpretation. If street names are not sufficiently unique to go without disambiguation (when such is not necessary to make the titles unique), then why not the same for human names? Powers ^T 21:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all numbered streets (34th Street, Eighth Avenue, etc.), Support moving all others (Mott Street, etc.). Agree with Primary Topic argument - for the vast majority of these streets, casual reference probably means the Manhattan one, and if the name page currently redirects to the (Manhattan) version it's a safe move. (If the Manhattan Street isn't the primary topic, that can be litigated on a page-by-page basis with a disambiguation page being on the main landing point when Manhattan isn't the primary topic.) That said, the numeric streets I have to feel that acting like Eighth Avenue is exclusive to Manhattan is asking for trouble - these names are so common that it's very, very likely the Manhattan one is not in fact the primary topic. And this is also where a bit of preemptive disambiguation hurts the least, since it's sensible to wonder "which 52nd Street" immediately upon seeing an article. SnowFire (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a New Yorker, a Manhattanite in fact, and in most cases a staunch exponent of its virtues and, indeed, superiority, but the argument for the named streets being the primary topic smacks to me of the classic New Yorker cover of the US as seen from a New Yorker's POV. We have articles on these streets because NYC is older than most US cities so has more depth in time to work from, because there are more New Yorkers than there are denizens of any other American city, which makes it more probable that someone will care enough to write articles about them -- not because they are the only streets by those names which have significance and are deserving of articles.

  As I said above, this campaign to remove the "Manhattan" disambiguator seems like a lot of fuss and bother for absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, but I feel that should be litigated on a case-by-case basis after there are significant other streets with Wikipedia articles being linked to. I've no objection to moving something like Centre Market Place back to the (Manhattan) disambiguator if and when it's needed, just that doesn't seem to be the case right now. SnowFire (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• This seems to be the best compromise so far.Z22 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• The BBC has a segment entitled "Sandy's destruction on Avenue C". So even a British audience can figure out that Avenue C is in New York based on context, and there is no need to explain this is not Avenue C in Runnymede. Most of the streets on this list I immediately connected to New York. Street names with low-numbers are pretty generic, so 4th Street may be a bridge (or street) too far. Kauffner (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• That was because "Sandy" in itself became well known in the "US & Canada" news section to help pin point to NY/NJ area. So part of the title is giving the context which is exactly what "(Manhattan)", as part of the title, is given the context to "Avenue C". Say, one day out of the blue BBC has a segment "A man stabbed on Avenue C", people would be thinking of Runnymede, not Manhattan. We need to get to be more mindful of the World audience concept of Wikipedia. Z22 (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Never mind the world audience, some of the names on the requested move list are obscure to most New Yorkers, and you don't have to go further than Brooklyn to find many of them duplicated. For example, 13th Avenue in that borough is far more prominent than the one in Manhattan. And Brooklyn street numbers go up to 101. Other boroughs have numbered streets too. Yes, we could handle potential conflicts on a case by case basis, but why bother? Eliminating the disambiguation doesn't help our readers and it doesn't help our editors.--agr (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why bother? Because the title is supposed to be the common name. The "(Manhattan)" parenthetical is Wiki-specific cruft. It looks unprofessional when it appears in large type across the top of an article. Other reference works don't do anything equivalent. The title is attached to an article, you know. So the information in the parenthetical is redundant. Kauffner (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Common name to whom? Locals or our readership in general? WP:TITLE says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." And our search box now does autocomplete, so having an unambiguous title lets the reader know immediately if an article is appropriate to their search, without first opening the article. We shouldn't waste our reader's time unnecessarily. Our readers are by now used to Wiki-specific cruft and they encounter parenthetical disambiguation all the time (my favorite is Pipe (fluid conveyance)). That said, for the cases we are discussing I agree the use of a comma would be more natural and I have proposed below that we first agree on switching from parentheses.--agr (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Other reference works don't do anything equivalent." On the contrary, the Brittanica article about the city whose name is similar to this street's name is Houston (Texas, United States). They use the long title in the title bar and the shorter title (Houston) in the article body. Presumably they do this so that their search tool, and external search tools such as Google, return better contextualized results. Pburka (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is a little egotistical to assume that a street in Manhatten is so well known that it does not need a qualifier. Having back links without the disambiguator simplies the process of adding a disambiguation page at a later date. Martinvl (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment So now what? These pages has to be renamed too?

• 2nd Ring Road (Beijing) and several pages for other similar numbered roads. The title should have been "2nd Ring Road" because no other Wikipedia article similar to that name.
• European route E001 and hundreds of other pages with similar numbered routes. Should have been called "E001". No other Wikipedia articles like that either.
• National Route A011 (Argentina) and several other similar pages should have been called "National Route A011". Seems unique to Argentina.
• R111 road (Ireland) and all other similar Ireland regional road pages should have been called "R111 road". No other Wikipedia page like that.
• National Route 1A (Vietnam) and all other similar A suffix of "national routes" of Vietnam should have been called "National Route 1A"
• National Highway 45C (India) all all of B, C, D suffix of "national highways" of India should have been shorten to "National Highway 45C". No other Wikipedia page of road names with national highway that have that kind of suffix.
• Nova Scotia Trunk 1 and all of Nava Scotia Trunk routes should have been like "Trunk 1".
• D111 road (Croatia) and all D series roads have to change to something just like "D111 road". No other Wikipedia pages with road named D followed by three digits.
• County Route 501 (New Jersey), no other CR-501 or County Route 501 can be found on Wikipedia, yet this one and tons of others CR routes have (New Jersey) on them. Change these too?
• All "State Routes" and "State Roads" (or designation of "SR") in the U.S. Many are very unique, such as Florida State Road A1A (the page should be called "State Road A1A" instead?). Or simply put, we don't have other Wikipedia page for that numbered route such as Nevada State Route 648 is for State Route 648 (or SR 648), should that page be renamed to "State Route 648"?

...

(and the list goes on). Again, bulk move for the numbered streets does not sound like a right move. It seems obvious that the whole world can see themselves as part of the world audience except a little island called Manhattan. Z22 (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not just a possibility that there will be an article about another 4th Street or Greenwich Avenue (both of them represented by many, many other streets worldwide, for example Perth contains important streets by both names), it's a near-certainty providing Wikipedia continues to flourish. In view of this the onus of proof in terms of WP:BALL should be with those who say there is no need to disambiguate, not with those who say there is. If this move proposal is supported by current policies and guidelines (as suggested above), then they are simply wrong in terms of WP:IAR and need updating. Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the arguments put forward by agr (talk, these streets just aren't well-known enough to stand on their own without some context in the titles. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support the moves generally per nom and WP:PRECISION, i.e., only be as precise as necessary. However, I would suggest to the nominator that s/he be more modest in future such requests. Some users who balk at numbered street moves might be amenable to moving some of the more notable named streets. —  AjaxSmack  03:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Side proposal: use comma disambiguation

Regardless of the outcome of this overall mass rename request, I would like to propose that any street names that are disambiguated be written as name, Manhattan rather than name (Manhattan). The comma method is more natural and is suggested by similar examples in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), under disambiguation. I hope this will be less controversial and if there is general agreement on using commas, i believe it could clarify the bigger question of when the street names should be disambiguated, by default or only when an actual conflict with a Wikipedia article exists. --agr (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Would support this proposal, which would be in line with the naming conventions anyway. The conventions suggest using the comma form of disambiguation when the disambiguator is a geographical entity. Unless a street (or other entity such as a theatre, cinema, park) is so well known as to immediately spring to mind worldwide as being the obvious location (and in the north of England, unless the context is given Central Park means the former rugby ground in Wigan, while Hyde Park is could mean numerous places), the borough/city/town should always be given. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose this proposal. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) mentions using commas for populated places. However, other geo articles such as those on hydroforms, landforms, and buildings, and streets typically use parentheticals for title disambiguators. —  AjaxSmack  03:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I largely agree, but that rule can be ambiguous for street names that also designate a neighborhood. Powers ^T 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this opposition. It seems that the convention for disambiguators of numbered streets are largely parenthetic. Z22 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole proposal was a rotten idea. Not just the use of the comma, but the elimination of the qualifiers. I agree with BeoyndMyKen and Z22 about this issue, but I'd like to point out that there's an Avenue C not only in Manhattan, but in Brooklyn. Dyer Avenue is in Manhattan and the Bronx. Mott Avenue is in the Bronx and Queens. Neither of the streets in each borough are connected in any way shape or form. -------User:DanTD (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

IPA is in the article, but only aminority of our readers can understand it, so having the common-sense pronunciation is worthwhile. Per WP:BRD your bold edit has been reverted, so you must not discuss on the talk page, while the article stays in the condition it was oin before the bold edit. Please do not edit war. Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

{copied above from my user talk page}

Hi, if you will review WP:PRON, Help talk:IPA for English, and WP:RESPELL, you will find that the standard way to indicate pronunciations throughout Wikipedia is with IPA. Other systems can in some cases be used to supplement it, but they have serious drawbacks and are not supposed to be primary. Also, you reverted even my standardizing of the respelled pronunciations that follow the IPA; in this case one of the ad-hoc respellings is somewhat misleading. Also, keeping those transcriptions standardized and linked to the key with the proper template means that the reader can check to make sure they've read it correctly. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS is not policy, and your edit makes the article less useful to readers, not more. BMK (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I agree that MOS is not policy, but it is a guideline with broad consensus support to use as a general rule. WP:BRD is merely an essay and there is no requirement to revert to the status quo and discuss; Sure, it's a nice thing to do, but using WP:BRD to demand it is not justified. I support the change that Xyzzyva has proposed, which standardizes the spelling per the various guidelines on pronunciation, assisting those who understand IPA as well as those (like me) who don't fully get it. The variation of "HOUSE-ton" in the second paragraph only creates more confusion and potential misunderstanding based on how the word "ton" is pronounced. Alansohn (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What we have now is the IPA in the lede sentence, which is fine, and then a simpler version later in the lede, which is for those people who don't read IPA. I see no problem with this, especially since it's a perennial problem for visitors to Manhattan. IPA is "official" (in the primary position) and the secondary guide is just that, secondary. Replacing the secondary guide with IPA is counter-productive to being belpful to our readers. BMK (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that my revision did not replace the respelling with IPA, it had both for each transcription. Additionally, I combined the pronunciation info into that single sentence, as it's redundant to give the correct pronunciation twice in the space of two paragraphs. BMK, what exactly is your objection? — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with IPA addition, even though I also agree that MOS is not policy. I suppose that since the IPA pronunciation guide is clearly linked, the IPA helps remove any possible confusion in the pronunciation mentioned in lead paragraph 2. Epic Genius (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:GNG isn't policy, either, but it's still pretty important. However, IPA might as well be Greek for most readers, and for topics like this, where pronunciation is important and is mentioned by many sources, I think it's perfectly reasonable to include a more accessible, secondary pronunciation guide as BMK has done. Pburka (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we need to split the entire thing into a whole new "Pronunciation" section, so we can elaborate on this point instead of confining all discussion of pronunciation to the lead. It could still be mentioned in the lead in passing, though. Epic Genius (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. BTW, your spelling change was unnecessary, since the vowel sound there is a schwa wether represented with an "e" or an "o". BMK (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed it because "ton" could be pronounced /tɛn/ (rhymes with "hen") or /tʌn/ (rhymes with "gun"). It sounds like the former pronunciation is used. Or in the Lower East Side, anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those pronunciations -- "hen" and "gun" -- are correct representations because those are accented vowels, and therefore not schwas. The closest approximation to the sound of Houston Street using normal orthography (i.e. not IPA) is actually HOUSE-t'n. The vowel is unaccented and barely exists, which is why it's a schwa. No one says HOUSE-TEN (as opposed to HOUSE-NINE), so it doesn't rhyme with "hen". If one ABSOLUTELY needed a letter in there "i" would probably be best at approximating the sound: HOUSE-tin, rhymes with "gin". BMK (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, better than saying "HEWS-tin", which, by the way, some of my friends do.Epic Genius (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You should give them 10 lashes with a wet noodle for that. BMK (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Epic Genius (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The conventions used by WP:PRK, which is the standard way to indicate a pronunciation respelling to supplement the IPA, would be HOW-stən, as I put in the article. "tin" is not ideal because some speakers do not have the weak vowel merger, and distinguish /ə/ from /ɪ/ in unstressed syllables. No English-alphabet vowels are consistent enough to be used for this, which is why these WP conventions have settled on using schwa—like most dictionaries that otherwise use respelling and not IPA. @Beyond My Ken: do you have any remaining objections to my edit that the other users haven't addressed? — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I updated the last sentence in the lead to use PRK, too. Pburka (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like WP:PRK is more useful than WP:IPA at this point. Epic Genius (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

From WP:PRK: "The IPA has significant advantages over the respelling system described here, as it can be used to accurately represent pronunciations from any language in the world, and (being an international standard) is often more familiar to non-native speakers of English." Pburka (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

PRK is more useful for English speakers, is what I meant. Epic Genius (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be more accessible, but that's not the same as more useful. Anyway, this isn't relevant to the current discussion about Houston Street. Pburka (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

More useful in this case, though. Epic Genius (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Map

Is the street map broken or something? Cause I get can't get it to work. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)