Talk:Manhattanhenge

Verification

Additional verification can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/nyregion/thecity/21fyi.html?ex=1149134400&en=f08227dabe2852dd&ei=5070.

Palaverist 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Seems like this should be merged.Mattnt 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They definitely should be merged and my preference is for Manhattanhenge to be the surviving name since the solistice is not the date the event occurs. Americasroof 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

East-West Streets

The intro to this article is somewhat confusing because 'east-west streets' would imply an equinotial alignment, not solstitial. In fact it's neither since the 'east-west' grid is not due east-west. It would be better, I feel, to omit all references to cardinal points unless actual bearings are given. Just my 2¢ Akhen3sir (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's probably splitting hairs. The east/west reference is more to differentiate it from the north/south streets. The east/west streets are labeled that way (e.g., West 42nd/East 42nd). You are correct they don't line up to the cardinal points and that should probably be made clearer. Americasroof (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

sunset on 13th of July

under the picture it says that the sun set to the right of the center on July 13, 2006, while it set on the center line on July 12. This must be wrong, on July 13, the sun always sets more left than on July 12! --androl (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The above note by Androl is correct; I noticed this on the talk page after making the same note on the main page. The (refracted) sun set at true azimuth 300.39 degrees on July 12, 2006 and 300.19 degrees on July 13. That is, the sun would set further to the left on July 13 than it did on the 12th. The original captioner is in error. He probably did not actually observe on July 12, or took the picture from a different altitude, causing intervening objects to change the apparent sunset time, or just pasted in something he saw from an article, and didn't calculate correctly. Eliasen (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I also corrected the bearing difference from 28.9 to 29.0 based on the Petzold article linked at bottom. In that article, Petzold derives the bearing from simplifications of plane geometry and spherical geometry. Both are slightly incorrect. Using higher-accuracy ellipsoidal bearing calculations (due to T. Vincenty) for the points Petzold cites gives an azimuth difference of 29.008 degrees. See [1] Eliasen (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Satellite image showing directions of sunrise/sunset

Satellite view of Manhattan centered on the intersection of Park Avenue and 34th Street, showing times and directions of sunsets (solid arrows) and sunrises (dotted arrows) in 2011. Times marked * have been adjusted for daylight saving. The black arrows correspond to Manhattanhenge.

Beyond My Ken reverted my Manhattanhenge_map.svg image twice, claiming it a mess.

Although the text already describes the phenomenon, I think readers who are less familiar with NYC geography, or think more visually (as I do) will benefit from an image which illustrates the directions of sunrise and sunset of both Manhattanhenge and throughout the year.

I agree that my first image was unnecessarily large and thus made it a much smaller thumbnail which I believe does not negatively affect the article.

Could you please suggest changes to the image (other than to remove it) that would make it less messy, as you put it?

Why do you think it a mess? Is it because the background bitmap is too dark, making the text unreadable?

Would it also be better if I called it a "satellite view" instead of a "map"?

Thanks, cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 12:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a mess because of all of the overlapping text. How about making two maps, one for the summer and one for the winter? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Too much text, at too small a size, makes it unreadable at any reasonable presentation size. But more than that, even at 2000px width, the information is confusing and difficult to parse. What is the purpose of the image? To show the reader that the sun sets at difficult angles at different times of the year? If that's the case, one or two examples would suffice -- the extremes and Manhattanhenge. Overall, the image does not present information in a way that's easily understandable by the reader. Try Acps's suggestion and simplify and see what you come up with -- but make any text on the image easy to read against the background. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above Acps and Ken. What I suggest you do is remove a few of the lines and use an idealised grid rather than manhatten itself; or perhaps zoom into manhatten with a magnifying glass. Or animate it. Or heck pretty much anything but this, there's just too much infomration in the diagram! Egg Centric 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mockup of what you could try

I am not a graphics artist. I did this in microsoft paint, it took all of two minutes, and it obviously doesn't meet any quality standard at all (other than, say, "bad quality" or "atrocious quality"). But I think a properly done version like this - showing manhatten as a whole, then zooming in to show the street grid pattern, then how the sun can line up - would be clear: Egg Centric 16:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and good effort, Egg Centric. I like that idea! I just centered it on W 34/Park Ave as that's reputedly the best place to view it, but it really applies to all of NYC. Showing the magnification might imply that it only applies at that point (or does it?) I'll see what I can come up with over the weekend... cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 12:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Satellite view of Manhattan centered on the intersection of Park Avenue and 34th Street, showing directions and local times of sunsets (solid arrows) and sunrises (dotted arrows) during Manhattanhenge (black), summer solstice (red), equinoxes (purple) and winter solstice (blue) in 2011. Times marked * have been adjusted for daylight saving.

Is the image on the right better? I've fixed the overlapping, cluttered and small text. Thanks, cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 04:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's significantly better. Any chance you can change the purple color, which I find hard to read due to lack of contrast? Also, it should be displayes somewhat larger, so that the text is more easily readable, or else the text size should be larger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. How's that? If there aren't any objections, I'll put it on the article. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. I suspect it will be best in the uper right corner at about 350 to 400px width. I'd do it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with the "css crop image" template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Satellite view of Manhattan centered on the intersection of Park Avenue and 34th Street, showing directions and local times of sunsets (solid arrows) and sunrises (dotted arrows) during Manhattanhenge (black), summer solstice (red), equinoxes (purple) and winter solstice (blue) in 2011. Times marked * have been adjusted for daylight saving. Click the image for an expanded view.

Thanks. As you can tell, the image crop template allows only part of an image to be used as a thumbnail but an interested reader can click it to see the whole image; perhaps the caption could state so. It's rather tricky to use, though. Both bSize and cWidth are set to the appropriate width as in normal thumbnails, then cHeight and oTop are tweaked by trial-and-error to get an appropriate crop window. Alternatively, open the image at the appropriate size in an image editor. oTop is the Y-coordinate of the top of the crop and cHeight is the Y-coordinate of the bottom minus the Y-coordinate of the top of the crop. I've made you a 350px version here. cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 01:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've put your 350px version into the article, and I think it looks pretty good. Let's see what kind of reaction it gets. Thanks for taking the time to make those changes to the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This image is the perfect example of what not to do. It contains way too much information and the most important one doesn't stand out from the rest. It took me three minutes to figure out the dates and directions of the Manhattanhenge. Since I want to be constructive here are a few practical comments: don't include the time on the picture. First it is totally irrelevant and second it hides the real information: the dates. The times can be added (and updated for the coming years) in the text as a table. Then, this page is not about equinoxes and solstices. There is no reason to use so many colors to identify them. If you really wish to add them for reference (a good idea), you can draw two sectors representing all sunrises and sunsets, without dates. With some transparency, they will be visible but not "in your face". Of course the important information is: the directions and dates of the Manhattanhenge since this is what is being illustrated. So, really, only two colors are needed: the Manhattanhenge directions and the sunrise-sunset sectors. And only 4 dates: those of the effect as other dates will be confusing. And no need to add dashed versus non-dashed arrows. Just add that sunrises are on the east and sunsets on the west. I hope I didn't sound too grumpy ! I hope you'll find these tips to simplify the drawing useful. Matt 109.9.51.77 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

[meta comment] Your comments are quite constructive overall, but you really really really could have left out the first three sentences. They “taint” the entire rest of your paragraph and make you sound dismissive. — Timwi (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture

@Beyond My Ken: Yes, I'm prejudiced against cultural references, especially when no sources are cited. And citing the pop culture item itself is a form of original research. The cover art for The Chemistry of Common Life shows the sun setting between some buildings, and the article claims it's an example of Manhattanhenge. Says who? That photo could have been taken between any number of buildings at any number of angles on any number of days. Which is the whole point of the the xkcd reference that motivated me to remove all this garbage in the first place (xkcd only explicitly mentions "Manhattan thing" with no secondary source to connect "Manhattan thing" to "Manhattanhenge"). Does Morning_Glory_(2010_film) actually use the term "Manhattanhenge" at any point, or does it just have a pretty sunset shot? If "Manhattanhenge" isn't mentioned in Morning Glory, it's original research to mention the film on the basis of the sunset scene. Plantdrew (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that such items might be removable on the basis of WP:IPCV as well. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No, actually not. Pop culture items are self-referencing, in that no source is a better reference for them then the item itself. This is the same theory under which we have plot sections in film and book articles. If any pop cult item strays from straight-forward description' into interpretation or analysis, then that material can and should be removed unless it's sourced, but seeing something and describing what you see is no more or less valid then reading a source and describing what you read. It's completely Verifiable, which is the most important thing. BMK (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In examining the items more closely, and thinking about them a bit, I agree that two of them are interpretations and not straight-forward description, so I've removed those two. BMK (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The test described in the essay WP:IPCV is a meaningful one, and the question of the inclusion of a mention or depiction of a location constituting something worth mentioning in an article is a useful mechanism. The ability of a a pop culture item to be self referencing is remarkably limited and should only be used in utterly obvious descriptions of the film / book / comic itself. I reinserted details regarding the film and added references. The sources added are not optimal, but are better than nothing or merely implying that the mention documents itself. I agree that the album cover should only be included with a source that makes the connection explicit. The comic uses "Henge" as the title and makes reference to the "Manhattan thing" of the sun setting between a set of objects, for which the strip itself might well be self-documenting. Still not sure, but it's a start. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Great. Now we're citing a source that appears to be based on Wikipedia. The HollywoodLife came out three weeks ago, and mentions exactly the two film/television references that this article does (CSI and Morning Glory). We say that Morning Glory shows "Harrison Ford, and ...Rachel McAdams, walking off into the Manhattanhenge sunset". HollywoodLife says "Harrison Ford and Rachel McAdams...both walk off into the Manhattanhenge sunset for a happy-ever-after ending!". Well, I haven't seen it, but the finale of the movie apparently takes places as a morning TV show is airing. Maybe they do walk off into the sunset as the credits roll, but that leaves a full day to skip over after the action is over. Moreover, Patrick Wilson is the love interest, not Harrison Ford (Ford's the antagonist). So why is Ford+McAdams "happy-ever-after"? Well, usually the male lead in a rom-com is the love interest, and this article doesn't dispel that impression if somebody writing for HollywoodLife were to be reading it. Provided Ford+McAdams walk off into the sunset at some point, is it actually a Manhattanhenge sunset, or just a regular sunset? I guess I'm going to have to watch the movie to maybe debunk this.

Or maybe I don't need to watch the film. At best, walking off into the sunset as credits roll is what WP:IPCV calls "a passing references to the article subject". And a brief appearance in a not particularly noteworthy film isn't an IPCV "fact of interest to a broad audience of readers". Are we really advancing anybodies understanding of the Manhattanhenge phenomenon if we mention Morning Glory or CSI? Absolutely not. Is Manhattanhenge important to understanding Morning Glory or describing the plot? It doesn't seem to be. Manhattanhenge may be important for understanding the CSI episode plot, but I don't see why this article needs to link to the CSI episode when the CSI article could link here. Did the HollywoodLife writer actually watch Morning Glory and come to their own conclusions about a sunset scene or did they just read this article? Plantdrew (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There is, and never has been, any community consensus for the wholesale removal of pop cultural items, so that option is a non-starter.

If I cite a book as a source, then, yes, if you want to check the source, you're going to have to find and read the book. WP:RS specifically says that ease of accessibility does not make a source unusable. There is no difference between finding a book and checking it to see that the source is correct, and watching the film to see if the citation is correct. So, yes, you're going to have to watch the film if you want to confirm the source - but since the citation refers to the end of the film, that's not terribly difficult to do. BMK (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Watching the closing scene isn't difficult, but I either need to pay $3 or pirate it, neither of which I really want to do. Never any consensus for wholesale removal? Why do we have stuff like World War II in popular culture? That garbage was wholesale removed from the parent article. In Popular Culture sections are a magnet for crap, and either get spun off into lists that nobody cares about or deleted. If we need to keep Morning Glory in here, why shouldn't "Entertainment website Hollywoodlife.com published an article on the Manhattanhenge phenomenon" also be added to the pop culture section? 05:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The article has already been enhanced since you wrote this. As of today it now also sports an image of Manhattanhenge sunrise. Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

No winter sunrises?

This article asserts that the year's grid-aligned sunrises are not "Manhattanhenges" but it provides no citation to support that assertion.

The article does not contain the sentence "No sunrise is a Manhattanhenge" but its assertion that only sunsets are Manhattanhenges is the logical equivalent of "No sunrise is a Manhattanhenge" and so the same standard for citation and footnoting applies. How is it that we KNOW that the word "Manhattanhenges" doesn't include grid-aligned sunrises? WHY do the people who use the word in a way that arbitrarily and capriciously excludes sunrises use it that way? What is a RATIONALE for this?

Google's algorithm may favor more-recent over less-recent pages. It is very hard right now (May 29th) to find a page where "Manhattanhenges" includes sunrises. I know that such sources exist because I have read them, long ago (I suspect long enough ago that the term predates the ascendancy of Dr. Tyson). It will be easier to find such sources if I google again in early December, when, for recency, they will "float to the top". I have been in a cab in December when 1010-WINS announced that a Manhattanhenge sunrise would occur the next day or had occurred hours earlier that morning.

The entire matter of excluding late-Autumn and early-Winter grid-aligned sunrises from the word "Manhattanhenges" should be looked at with skepticism until sufficient documentation is supplied.2604:2000:C682:2D00:3934:55A0:33B5:B02F (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Manhattanhenge. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160509131514/http://gothamist.com/2016/05/06/manhattanhenge_2016_dates.php to http://gothamist.com/2016/05/06/manhattanhenge_2016_dates.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170517043032/http://gothamist.com/2017/05/15/manhattanhenge_2017_dates.php to http://gothamist.com/2017/05/15/manhattanhenge_2017_dates.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609073024/http://www.sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10222 to http://www.sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10222

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) 06:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Say how they shifted it

discovered that its main street almost framed the rising sun on Midsummer Day and the setting sun on Midwinter Day, they consulted Greenwich Observatory to obtain the exact angle required at their latitude, and persuaded their engineers to shift the grid of roads a few degrees.

OK, but say if they shifted it even more, to avoid traffic hazards, or less ...Jidanni (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The same Manhattanhenge concept can be used for mountain identification

Perhaps mention the same Manhattanhenge concept can be used for mountain identification. [2] Jidanni (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)