Talk:The Cock

No pictures

Pretty funny that a bar that doesn't allow pictures inside has a picture on Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Yeah, that is pretty funny! According to the file page at the Commons, the photographer is David Shankbone, so maybe he got special permission. Armadillopteryx^talk 20:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Entrance to The Cock

• ... that you can't take pictures of The Cock? Source: "Pictures are not permitted inside the bar." ()
  • ALT1:... that The Cock got in trouble for smoking? Source: "The backroom got tamed a bit, though smoking did not (still, its only summons was dismissed)." ()
  • ALT2:... that The Cock has had three homes? Source: "The Cock has been open for twenty years and has had three locations. The first was on Avenue A in Alphabet City, the second was on First Avenue, and its third and current location is on Second Avenue." ()

• Reviewed: Newforge
• Comment 1: I'm pretty indifferent as to whether the image is used—just providing one in case it would be helpful to have for a batch.
• Comment 2: This would be especially suitable to appear on the main page during June (Pride Month).

Created by Armadillopteryx (talk). Self-nominated at 10:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

• This article length and age are all good, can't see any plagiarism concerns, uses good reliable sources, think the first hook is very funny and short and snappy

• Thanks! Armadillopteryx^talk 03:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Short description and lead

@Armadillopteryx and @GrampaSwood, regarding this edit, which added the US to both the lead and short description (since this has been reverted before):

• I think adding the country to the lead is fine. Per MOS:FIRSTLOCATION, the country is usually included in the lead sections of articles about buildings or places.
• However, it is extraneous to add it to the short description. According to WP:SDFORMAT, the short description should be short – no longer than is needed to fulfill its functions effectively. There is no utility gained by adding the US to the short description as New York is pretty well known. If you were talking about a "church in Columbus, Indiana, US", that would be a different story, but "Manhattan, New York" is an unambiguous location like London or Paris.

– Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I am in favour of always mentioning the country on the first mention regardless of the place (with a few exceptions). If you deem it unnecessary in the short description, I don't mind if it's removed (I simply added it back because I thought the issue was 'USA' being used and not 'US, but I see that was only the lead). GrampaSwood (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a good point that, per MOS:FIRSTLOCATION, it would be customary to include the country at first mention in the lead. The current phrasing (New York City, United States) doesn't fit the prescribed format of MUNICIPALITY, STATE, United States, though, so I tweaked it to:

The Cock is a gay dive bar in the East Village neighborhood of Manhattan in New York, New York, United States.

Lead sentences for NYC locations can be tricky because, in addition to the city, the neighborhood and borough are often pertinent to mention. This can get clunky and less readable when also including the state and country.

I think that one could make a case for WP:IAR and use only New York City for readability's sake (as NYC has broad global recognition), but I can live with the longer form if others feel strongly. Armadillopteryx 02:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)