Talk:Gem Spa
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Image
edithi. there is an edit war going on where someone is trying to replace the image originally in this article with his own. they look the same to me except the street is less crowded. i think we should discuss it first. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The change is objectively an improvement. The original photo had so many people in front of the shop that all that could be seen of it was the sign and the canopy. The replacement image does not have people in the way, and the shop can be seen. That I took the replacement is irrelevant. I do a lot of image work on Wikipedia articles, and my criteria is always what is best for the article, and never who took the photo. It happens frequently that I look at all the available images and decide that someone else's photo is a better choice than mine. In this case, that doesn't happen to be the case. If someone uploads a better image, it should go into the article, but, in the meantime, the replacement image is an improvement over the original.
Editors can judge for themselves which of the two images shows the store to best effect. In the meantime, stop edit warring, please.
- you should wait until people weigh in on the new image before changing it MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- you can see more of the surrounding area and the colors are better in the original. the detail and focus are also better MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- isnt it considered rude to go around replacing peoples images with your own worse ones? also i changed your alignment on this talk page because its confusingMrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Improving an article is never considered rude. I replaced an adequate image with a better one, so the article is, in some small way, better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- your pic is washed out looking MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, that's a legitimate complaint. I've uploaded a new version with improved visibility. Reember, this image is neing displayed in the infobox at 275px or so, so it needs to function at that size. Also, we are not deciding which is the better example of the photographer's technique, we're deciding which one shows the subject of the article to best effect in the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- i still think the original is better if its a bad pic it shouldnt be used MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- the original is also much higher res MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again, the resolution is irrelevant, as it's displayed at a small size in the article. The replacement functions better than the original. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, that's a legitimate complaint. I've uploaded a new version with improved visibility. Reember, this image is neing displayed in the infobox at 275px or so, so it needs to function at that size. Also, we are not deciding which is the better example of the photographer's technique, we're deciding which one shows the subject of the article to best effect in the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- your pic is washed out looking MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Improving an article is never considered rude. I replaced an adequate image with a better one, so the article is, in some small way, better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- isnt it considered rude to go around replacing peoples images with your own worse ones? also i changed your alignment on this talk page because its confusingMrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- you can see more of the surrounding area and the colors are better in the original. the detail and focus are also better MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- you should wait until people weigh in on the new image before changing it MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
we are trying to decide if the original photo is better or the replacement MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support original. Beyond My Ken knows better than to edit war over an image. When a dispute arises over a new image replacing the older one, revert to the older one and start a discussion about the topic. One could compromise in this instance, by cropping the original on the left. Obviously, Beyond My Ken's image has problems, and I suggest he read our article on clipping and view the blown-out highlights in a graphics editing program of his choice. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Replacement. Original is too crowded. I prefer the replacement. --Neo139 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Replacement. Not much in it, but the new version is in slightly better focus. However, I also wonder whether this is an article about a non-notable building/business. The only reference which appears to be RS is from a primary source. --FormerIP (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's plenty notable. It appears to have been quite the centre of beat and hippie culture in the 1960s. I've added sources. Fences&Windows 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for doing that. Not that I'm at all sceptical, but I'm just off to do the research for an article on Paul's, Da adjoining Burger Joint... --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck with that! Gem Spa is a local legend, I'm guessing Paul's Place is not. Isn't it funny how we spend so much time and energy debating relatively unimportant things like what picture to use (they're both OK), while the actual article is neglected? Arguing minutiae is easier than researching facts. Fences&Windows 01:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a New Yorker, and I'm sure Gem Spa is totally historically significant if you say so. Just letting out a little mild satire. I'm pretty sure I could find the reliable sources to make an article on Paul's Burger Joint which would be impervious to anything but the most determined delete campaign if I wanted to, or any other business in New York, for that matter. --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck with that! Gem Spa is a local legend, I'm guessing Paul's Place is not. Isn't it funny how we spend so much time and energy debating relatively unimportant things like what picture to use (they're both OK), while the actual article is neglected? Arguing minutiae is easier than researching facts. Fences&Windows 01:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for doing that. Not that I'm at all sceptical, but I'm just off to do the research for an article on Paul's, Da adjoining Burger Joint... --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the original for the picture quality, and the latter for the composition. Can the latter be colour adjusted so it's not washed out? Fences&Windows 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I also prefer the original, perhaps this is because I think of New York as a bustling city which the original shows Lukieboy1981 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
new image
editdid i do this right? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
are people supposed to change other peoples talk comments like this [1] MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are not supposed to do that. If I were you, I would leave Beyond My Ken a polite message on his talk page, asking him not to do it again, and in the future, to raise the issue up with you on your talk page first. If he does it again after that, report him on WP:ANI. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if anyone is still reading this, but Beyond My Ken's photo is superior in three respects, and inferior in one: It is better in that it is cropped to better centerize the subject, the subject is in the sun rather than the shade, and it is less obstructed by passersby. Its main problem is that it has this ugly bluish tint. This is easily fixed by image editing, which I just did, for whatever it's worth. Nightscream (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I appreciate it. I believe the bluish tint is an artifact of the cheap camera I use under certain lighting conditions. Can you tell me how you corrected it, so that I can do so in the future, if needs be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if anyone is still reading this, but Beyond My Ken's photo is superior in three respects, and inferior in one: It is better in that it is cropped to better centerize the subject, the subject is in the sun rather than the shade, and it is less obstructed by passersby. Its main problem is that it has this ugly bluish tint. This is easily fixed by image editing, which I just did, for whatever it's worth. Nightscream (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Video and alternative pictures
editThere's a Creative Commons Attrib licensed video on Flickr of an Egg Cream being prepared at Gem Spa.[2] There's another possible photo to use on Flickr:[3] Fences&Windows 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- wow you did some really good work!!! MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Goldfeder's
editI can reliably source that the store belonged to the Goldfeder's. Two further sources of interest:
- A commenter on the Gothamist piece called Marc Goldfeder says it was his grandfather Nathan who founded the store and that his father Simon worked there, and he gives some more details on the store and his family. Not reliable enough to include in the article, but an interesting lead.
- Ancestry.com has a photograph (subscription required) of "Goldfeder's Famous Egg Cream" attached to an entry for "Simon Goldfeder (1908-1961)". Image thumbnail.
More info on the store from that time would probably require a trip to a library or a records office. Fences&Windows 22:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gem Spa. 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/20101004164854/http://leshp.org:80/history/component/content/article/87-14th-to-houston/53-st-marks-place-lot-by-lot-history to http://leshp.org/history/component/content/article/87-14th-to-houston/53-st-marks-place-lot-by-lot-history
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928020849/http://www.nycny.com/content/history/judson.htm to http://www.nycny.com/content/history/judson.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140907130939/http://www.artactuel.com:80/artiste-contemporain-confirme/basquiat-jean-michel-7/oeuvres/gem-spa-5003.html to http://www.artactuel.com/artiste-contemporain-confirme/basquiat-jean-michel-7/oeuvres/gem-spa-5003.html
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) 22:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
1970s owner
editA comment in the article under the references said: "In 1972 the new owner was Joseph Zee..... he won best egg cream ,with the soho news and village voice.he beat daves corner". Fences&Windows 17:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gem Spa. 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/20151017081019/http://gothamist.com/2015/08/13/gem_spa_st_marks.php to http://gothamist.com/2015/08/13/gem_spa_st_marks.php
- Added archive https://archive.is/20130125230654/http://www.hofstrachronicle.com/arts-entertainment/egg-cream-maintains-mythic-status-at-gem-spa-1.1719419 to http://www.hofstrachronicle.com/arts-entertainment/egg-cream-maintains-mythic-status-at-gem-spa-1.1719419
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705093340/http://gothamist.com/2006/04/20/nyc_album_art_n_1.php to http://gothamist.com/2006/04/20/nyc_album_art_n_1.php
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) 07:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
New York Times article
editCan Instagram and Egg Creams Save the Last Punk Rock Bodega? https://nyti.ms/2zuHQPi RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Zoltar machine article
editArticle mentions some interesting facts about Gem Spa. --- Possibly ☎ 22:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Bodega vs newsstand vs candy store
editI would say, @Beyond My Ken, that Gem Spa was primarily a candy store. However, it came to be known as a newsstand and a bodega. E.g. [4] Andre🚐 23:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, gee, that solid wall-and-a-half of newspapers and magazines must have been left there by people buying egg creams. Personally, what I bought at Gem Spa was primarily milk at 3am. Beyond My Ken (talk)
- Sure, but that's really not inconsistent with it being a bodega. "Candy store" is a little bit of an antiquated term but it also still refers to it being a corner store with certain goods like cigarettes, some grocery items or sandwiches, etc.Andre🚐 23:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- No bodgea that I'm aware stocks magazines and newspapers to that extent - the most would be possibly a rack. I have no idea why the owner referred to it as a "bodega" -- maybe something to do with its classification by the city? -- but there's really no doubt that its characteristics were not those of a bodega. We generally don't take an owner's word for what their business is, so I think we need a citation from another (reliable) source which doesn't rely on the owner's statement before we call it a bodega in Wikipedia's voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are not too many anymore sadly, but there used to be a lot more stores that were comic book stores and newsstands that also sold candy, cigarettes, and sometimes even prepared food. Anyway, here's NYT [5][6], TimeOut [7], I'm not sure if we consider Brooklyn Vegan, Curbed, Atlas Obscura, and Eater NY to be reliable for anything so I'm not bothering to include those, Village Voice [8], Gothamist [9] actually calls it an "egg cream palace" but it's in the context of delis and bodegas, City & State [10] Andre🚐 00:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm surprised by the number of cites you came up with, but the majority of those are clearly influenced by the statement of the owner, so I wouldn't count them as being independent evaluations of the store's character. The 1972 VV article "The Last Punk Rock Bodega" would count (you didn't cite it directly, but it's mentioned in the header to the VV article you did cite) would be a legit citation, one not influenced by the words of the owner. I still think its a mischaracterization, and that Gem Spa was unlike the vast majority of stores referred to as bodegas -- a term which itself is vague and undefined -- but you've got a cite, so I can hardly continue to argue against adding "bodega". If you think it's important to add it, go ahead, perhaps with something like "often referred to as a bodega", if you're amenable to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- That works for me. Let me see if I can find the 1972 article. [02:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)] I can't find the original 1972 right now but I'll look for it. In the meantime I'll add the suggested text with the Village Voice cite and 1 of the NYT cites. Andre🚐 02:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Putting it in the second graf helps a lot, thanks. I con definitely live with this result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks! I agree by the way that bodega is a pretty amorphous term that is definitely not limited to any particular community or type of business. My grandfather and great-uncle owned a luncheonette and made egg creams in Brooklyn in the 1940s and early 50s, and it was also called the store or the "candy store," but I was confused the first time I heard that term or the term bodega. Because, I had always called those stores a "deli." However by the late 1990s I'm fairly sure based on my anecdotal information that bodega and deli were both used ubiquitously to describe any convenience store that may or may not have food or newspapers and magazines. At any rate, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City is doing an improvement drive/WP:COTW on bodega and Gem Spa turns out to be one of the more notable historically-described-as-bodegas that I've found (despite, not being Puerto Rican or particularly indicative of the term bodega in general) Andre🚐 02:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've not done any research on the matter, but to me bodegas are kind of a cross between a deli and a small grocery store that were primarily located in Hispanic neighborhoods. (Many of them had yellow awnings with red lettering.) Delis would have some groceries, but would be more centered on making sandwiches or dishing out salads, and many were in Jewish (or formerly Jewish) neighborhoods. A convenience store -- to me -- meant a 7-11 or Circle K or one of those little stores that most of the gas stations off the highways now have (which they didn't when I was a kid - you went to a gas station for gas and an oil check and your windows cleaned, to get your car serviced, or to get road maps, not to buy a Coke and packaged mini-donuts). As a kid from the suburbs, I knew delis, but bodegas were completely unknown to me until I moved to Manhattan 46 years ago -- but, then again, most McDonald's then were on exits off the highway (I distinctly remember when Manhattan got its first McDonald's, across the street from Madison Square Garden) so certainly things have changed. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks! I agree by the way that bodega is a pretty amorphous term that is definitely not limited to any particular community or type of business. My grandfather and great-uncle owned a luncheonette and made egg creams in Brooklyn in the 1940s and early 50s, and it was also called the store or the "candy store," but I was confused the first time I heard that term or the term bodega. Because, I had always called those stores a "deli." However by the late 1990s I'm fairly sure based on my anecdotal information that bodega and deli were both used ubiquitously to describe any convenience store that may or may not have food or newspapers and magazines. At any rate, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City is doing an improvement drive/WP:COTW on bodega and Gem Spa turns out to be one of the more notable historically-described-as-bodegas that I've found (despite, not being Puerto Rican or particularly indicative of the term bodega in general) Andre🚐 02:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Putting it in the second graf helps a lot, thanks. I con definitely live with this result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- That works for me. Let me see if I can find the 1972 article. [02:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)] I can't find the original 1972 right now but I'll look for it. In the meantime I'll add the suggested text with the Village Voice cite and 1 of the NYT cites. Andre🚐 02:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm surprised by the number of cites you came up with, but the majority of those are clearly influenced by the statement of the owner, so I wouldn't count them as being independent evaluations of the store's character. The 1972 VV article "The Last Punk Rock Bodega" would count (you didn't cite it directly, but it's mentioned in the header to the VV article you did cite) would be a legit citation, one not influenced by the words of the owner. I still think its a mischaracterization, and that Gem Spa was unlike the vast majority of stores referred to as bodegas -- a term which itself is vague and undefined -- but you've got a cite, so I can hardly continue to argue against adding "bodega". If you think it's important to add it, go ahead, perhaps with something like "often referred to as a bodega", if you're amenable to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are not too many anymore sadly, but there used to be a lot more stores that were comic book stores and newsstands that also sold candy, cigarettes, and sometimes even prepared food. Anyway, here's NYT [5][6], TimeOut [7], I'm not sure if we consider Brooklyn Vegan, Curbed, Atlas Obscura, and Eater NY to be reliable for anything so I'm not bothering to include those, Village Voice [8], Gothamist [9] actually calls it an "egg cream palace" but it's in the context of delis and bodegas, City & State [10] Andre🚐 00:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- No bodgea that I'm aware stocks magazines and newspapers to that extent - the most would be possibly a rack. I have no idea why the owner referred to it as a "bodega" -- maybe something to do with its classification by the city? -- but there's really no doubt that its characteristics were not those of a bodega. We generally don't take an owner's word for what their business is, so I think we need a citation from another (reliable) source which doesn't rely on the owner's statement before we call it a bodega in Wikipedia's voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's really not inconsistent with it being a bodega. "Candy store" is a little bit of an antiquated term but it also still refers to it being a corner store with certain goods like cigarettes, some grocery items or sandwiches, etc.Andre🚐 23:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)