Talk:New York City/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Airports in infobox

@Msloewengart: I think adding the major airports that serve NYC in the infobox is a good idea. It's also not unheard of, see this example. As for content, I think EWR should be included to be consistent with the transportation section, the article on transoportation in NYC, and Aviation in the New York metropolitan area. All three places list Newark as a major airport serving the city. Another example is Dallas. Here they have a separate field for the secondary airport, we may wish to do the same with EWR. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I previously reverted, but I think it's probably a good idea. Maybe just a link to the aviation article is better, though, as it's more complete. That way Newark can be covered, but also LI MacArthur, Westchester and the other commercial airports around the area without having too many links in the Infobox. oknazevad (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluttering the infobox is a valid concern, but I feel having to click through to another article to get information may stray from the purpose of the infobox, which is to accessibly list relevant facts about the subject. I also would like to stress an attempt to be consistent with infoboxes of other cities. I can try to find some more examples, but Dallas and Detroit are two, which both list the airports full names and IATA code. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the concern of completeness, I think naming the major airports will suffice, as it's more relevant to the reader. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree with that. But we do need to list Newark. Although located in New Jersey, it is very much used by people going to or from NYC itself. Just the fact that NYC cabs are required to go there if that's the passenger's destination tells me that the city government considers it important to the city. That many airlines list it in their itineraries as "Newark/New York" (or evern vice versa) tells me that it's truly a New York airport, while also being the main airport for North Jersey. No reason it can't be both. oknazevad (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above comment. Here in the UK, Newark is always named as New York-Newark by United, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty - picture

Isn't the presence of a picture of a picture of the Statue of Liberty misleading? It is in fact in New Jersey and so not even in that same state let alone city? We should consider a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.163.1 (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must be mistaken. The Statue of Liberty is located on Liberty Island, and the portion on which it stands is considered part of Manhattan. More at Statue of Liberty National Monument#Jurisdiction and Liberty_Island#Jurisdictional_disputes. It is an internationally recognized symbol of New York City, so regardless of technical jurisdiction it very much deserves a place in the infobox. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MRC?

Does anyone know if there is an appropriate landing page for the Metropolitan Regional Council (MRC) referenced in this book? [3] Did it undergo a name change?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014

Sister City is Santiago, Chile 200.28.241.125 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Do you have a reference? I don't see Santiago listed at the Sister Cities International official site. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

New montage for intro

During the last change of the montage image there was a general consensus that the current picture would do until the new One WTC was completed. Since the exterior of that building is now complete, I decided to create an updated image. Also, since there was space for it, I added a picture of Yankee Stadium to the mix for two main reasons: 1) they are arguably the most successful sports team to play in NYC, and 2) the picture helps represent the Bronx for the montage. Of course, I'm open to feedback/debate about the content of the image, and everyone is free to offer their own alternative. --Jleon (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what software you used to create the montage, but it appears the individual images may have lost some quality in the process... it looks pretty blurry to me. The original montage was 1,195 × 1,510 in size, as opposed to the current 579 × 749. I'd also consider using the same images for Midtown, Times Square, and the Unisphere, as the colours seem more vibrant. Lastly, I'm not by any means against including Yankee Stadium, but within the infobox it's just so small I have to question how effective it is as an illustration. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the new montage is a good start. Like anything else, it takes getting used to. I agree with MusikAnimal about changing the Midtown image back to the image which had been there before. Just my thoughts. Castncoot (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the new montage again, I agree that the previous Midtown, Unisphere, and Times Square images are preferable to the new ones. The previous images were more vibrant, but more importantly, the previous Midtown image displayed the Empire State Building, which this one does not. I prefer the new United Nations and Brooklyn Bridge images, while I'm neutral about the new Statue of Liberty image. The Yankee Stadium picture probably represents a WP:UNDUE issue with regards to stadiums and sports teams, even if it affords an opportunity for a Bronx image; it may be best just to delete it altogether. Perhaps a larger Lower Manhattan image (and entire montage) would be in order?

Castncoot (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't create or edit montages - but I believe that this new Midtown image - apparently actually a recycled image of old - really should be replaced by the previous Midtown image. Castncoot (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't hear a response back from Jleon, so I had to presume that there is no consensus for this new montage, which is actually a compilation of some old and recycled pictures - which is not necessarily bad, as long as they are representative of NYC in its current state; and so for the moment, I've reverted it back to the current status quo - but this doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement. The BB and UN images submitted by Jleon are actually better, I think. On the other hand, the biggest problem (by far) is that hideous Midtown image, which doesn't show the ESB and is emblematic of an older, smoggier era in NYC (since which time the air has become significantly cleaner). Jleon's primary goal of including the new WTC is right on target, however - so keep trying!

Castncoot (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. MusikAnimal is right about the resolution of the image. Something happened there, and I'll need to work from scratch on a higher res version. The reason why I like the older Midtown image is because it shows the scale of it, and you can see a lot of the city in the distance beyond. It is outdated though, and in a few years the new towers on and near 57th Street will require a new photo entirely. I'm not sure I understand the concern about Yankee Stadium, because every city article includes photos of stadiums and such. Anyway, I'll work on a higher res version that includes the current midtown pic, a more colorful Times Square, and a larger bottom row. --Jleon (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to keep the current (status quo) Unisphere and Statue of Liberty images as well; note that the Unisphere has its fountains turned on, and another point to think about is that NYC generally has more of a "partly cloudy" than "cloudless" sky - it does not have a Mediterranean or desert climate. This may be why the new (recycled) images you have submitted on behalf of those two themes appear jarring. No offense intended, obviously, I'm just trying to achieve a montage that represents the city in its current state here. There are some cloudless days, however, and the current Midtown pic looks classic enough to override the sky issue. On the other hand, your new Lower Manhattan picture is wonderful, with a clean, yet partly cloudy, sky as a background. Your new Brooklyn Bridge and United Nations images represent a very significant improvement upon the current ones; the UN pic shows flags of different countries, while the details of the Brooklyn Bridge arches are also better displayed; so I hope you will keep your new WTC, BB, and UN images in your redesigned montage.

Castncoot (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, note that these city article montages tend to display their cities' primary icons, and so don't feel a need to include every borough in this lead montage; therefore, secondary icons such as sports stadiums can be shown in the body of the article, while Central Park definitely needs to stay in the montage, whether using the current image or another. This rationale essentially means that we will need to have a net gain of one image for the montage, being that the primary goal here is to add an image of the new WTC, while secondarily improving upon other images where possible while we're at it, including your new BB and UN images, for example. I believe this would be the way to proceed. Castncoot (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Just occurred to me, what could be potentially ideal would be a single image which features the Brooklyn Bridge with throngs of people crossing it, facing Lower Manhattan and the new WTC head on. This would accomplish several purposes in one image, namely showing the new WTC and Lower Manhattan in perspective, showing the Brooklyn Bridge in perspective and with the arch detail involved, and also demonstrating the importance of the Brooklyn Bridge as a pedestrian thoroughfare. Would it be possible for someone to upload such a photograph? Castncoot (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here is my latest attempt. I think this incorporates most of the feedback here, and it's in a much higher resolution than the previous image. If there are no objections I'll use this to replace the current montage shortly. --Jleon (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did some minor tweaks to my final image. The pedestal of the SOL is now visible and there's some more space for the flags in front of the UN. Also, there's a little more of the waterfront visible for Lower Manhattan. --Jleon (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I also added some space between the photos. --Jleon (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for the feedback from you and Castncoot. --Jleon (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up, Jleon, fabulous!!! Castncoot (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Demographics section

Over its incremental expansion the Demographics info tends to be all over the place, while also riddled with numerous little unnecessary details that can easily be left out (as just one example, we really don't need to know that the population of NY is "greater than the combined totals of Los Angeles and Chicago"; it's fine to just say its the largest city. The sentence on Mayor Bloomberg challenging the population as an under-count is also irrelevant; this is one man's opinion and not a salient statistic). We also have to remember that ultimately this is a summary article that does not need to include all the demographics details about the city which can be found in Demographics of New York City. But more importantly there needs to be organization and cohesion of information. All similar and related information needs to be brought together and condensed instead of being all over the place, so it is much easier for the reader to digest. I will look over the section and come back with a proposal of how I think it should be re-organized. Cadiomals (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that section needs a lot of work and you're right there's a lot of superfluous material in it. I don't think you need to make a proposal though, I would just go ahead and start editing it. --Jleon (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The devil is in the details, so to speak. You lose a lot by gutting detail. Castncoot (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I've been too busy to edit much over the past few days so I think I lost track of what I said I was going to do here. @Jleon: providing a proposal, discussing everyone's concerns, and coming to a compromise is better in certain situations like this one instead of making a bold edit right off the bat which someone could revert if they don't totally agree with it. @Castncoot: remember that this is a summary article meant to give an overview of the different aspects of the city. It already looks as though Demographics is unusually long compared to other individual sections. The less salient details can easily be left in Demographics of New York City, and we won't lose much as long as we know exactly which ones should be removed. Most of all, due to incremental edits adding more detail over time, this section has become chaotic and disjointed; returning organization is the primary goal while removing excessive or superfluous details for conciseness greatly helps. It's late night here and I'm about to go to sleep so I'll come back with a proposal tomorrow and we can work it out. Cadiomals (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cadiomals, the Demographics section has already been worked on significantly by some other editors over the past year or so. For a city of approximately 8.4 million (and with NYC's exceptional diversity, to boot), the Demographics section is actually a bit on the short side and could use a bit more length and detail. This is not like describing any other U.S. city demographically, and one has to be extremely cautious in removing anything here. Castncoot (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

By "worked on significantly" I assume you mean just the incremental addition of details over time, paying no attention to organization (there's a reason this article lost both its Good and Featured status a while ago). If we're not going to remove many other details at the very least we can remove that pointless mention of Michael Bloomberg "challenging" the census, it looks out of place there because it is the personal opinion of a single man, not a statistic. The following statement is redundant, as they are already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs: "Substantial Dominican[188] and Puerto Rican populations reside in the New York City metropolitan region. The Irish also have a notable presence" ...Also, please justify how this detail is appropriate and salient enough to be kept in a summary demographics section of a big city: "one in 50 New Yorkers of European origin carries a distinctive genetic signature on his Y chromosome inherited from the clan of Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish king of the fifth century A.D.[189] or from one of the related clans of Uí Briúin and Uí Fiachrach.[190]" Lastly, related topics seem to be split up and a re-organization of some info would have no impact on the info itself, and overall my changes are barely significant. It should be a fair compromise as I had the desire to remove a little more than that so I'm going ahead with it. Cadiomals (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty good editing there (with a few compensatory tweaks), Cadiomals. I suggest not taking any more out for now, however - that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Tax revenue return imbalance information does not belong in a top level article

The text:

"The city has a strong imbalance of payments with the national and state governments. It receives 83 cents in services for every $1 it sends to the federal government in taxes (or annually sends $11.4 billion more than it receives back). The city also sends an additional $11 billion more each year to the state of New York than it receives back.[310]"

belongs in the Government of NYC main article (and indeed appears there as well) and is out of place in this top level article, and reeks of someone pushing an agenda. Especially since the statement is made in a vacuum of other information about the tax structure of NYC. Either delete or broaden to a wider discussion of the tax structure in NYC including the city's personal income tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.132.21 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit the Military section to add the US Coast Guard Station on Staten Island

Just wanted to request an addition to the military section that the US Coast Guard maintains a station and sector HQ on Staten Island. The USCG is a component of the armed services. The first sentence in the topic is also incorrect that Fort Hamilton is only active military installation in the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamTKE594 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturing Sector in New York

There's a document somewhere, published by the Bloomberg administration, that implied that jobs in the manufacturing sector aren't declining but instead shifting focus, ie, while there are undoubtedly fewer cement plants than there were ten years ago, startups with high value-added business models have added jobs (businesses manufacturing gourmet food and high-end clothing, or taking advantage of the new 3D printers would be examples of these). Apparently this is because many younger people who were laid off during the financial crisis gave up on finding new jobs in their old fields and decided to pursue their hobbies professionally instead. These businesses are able to thrive despite strong competition and high rents because the goods they make by their very nature sell for much more than the cost of raw materials. That the manufacturing sector is depicted in employment surveys as declining reflects both increasing industrial rents AND their failure to take into account industry in fields that did not exist twenty years ago. I think the article should be changed to reflect this. Quodfui (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Third question for FAQ

Any thoughts on whether "Why isn't this article at New York, New York??" qualifies as a third question to be added to the FAQ at the top of this talk page?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

New York, New York (disambiguation)

Fixed

 – Thanks to ApprenticeFan. Tobias Bergemann (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New York, New York redirects to New York City, and at the moment there is nothing in the lead section to direct readers to New York, New York (disambiguation). I had added such a link but this was reverted. The lead section contains the following incantation

{{Other uses|New York City (disambiguation)|NYC (disambiguation)|New York, New York (disambiguation)}}

of the Other uses template. As this template only takes two parameters, the third parameter ("New York, New York (disambiguation)") is ignored. Tobias Bergemann (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Need to revise details for recently added GDP info

The recently added GDP info at the beginning of this article needs to be revised to show that the more than $1.2 trillion GDP was for 2009. It also needs to include the citation below, which references the GDP amount. None of the other referenced citations report on this GDP amount.

[4] 67.84.204.32 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

To make matters even worse, it turns out that the reported GDP/GMP figure added to the beginning of the article was not just for the five boroughs of New York City, but for the metropolitan area of New York City, Long Island, and northern NJ. It is already included in the NY City article in the Economy section with this referenced citation ("Gross Metropolitan Product".), which was for 2010 and supersedes the 2009 data. This current citation is also more definitive than the proposed citation that I indicated above. In addition, none of the 8 citations that were added to the New York city article for this 2009 GDP figure at the beginning of the article even reference the GDP figure of over $1.2 trillion in the referenced statement and are really superfluous.

The recently added, incorrectly described information and out-of-date statement and the associated irrelevant citations in the first paragraph of the article should be removed. GDP/GMP info is properly addressed in the Economy section. 67.84.204.32 (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Outdated/incorrect GMP figures and citations have been removed and replaced with relevant data and citation for NY City metropolitan area for 2012. Wishing27 (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something, Wishing27? I (not you) was the one who updated the info and the ref for 2012. Another editor had previously inserted an outdated statement (with 2009 data), had not properly referenced it, and had not specified the term "gross metropolitan product" which by definition (and also wikilinked) defines the annual gross product of a metropolitan area, and not the GDP of a country (nor the gross annual product of any individual city, if there is such a thing, for that matter). Also, incidentally, the data is on page 9 of the reference document, not page 10. Castncoot (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not say who updated the info. I just said it was done. I have also provided updated, relevant information and citation details. The referenced data is also on page 1 in addition to page 9. Thanks for your efforts to untangle and improve the quality and accuracy of this information. The updates were due to both of our efforts. Wishing27 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Explanation well taken. In fact, I actually like your latest edit better than mine. I've now expanded it to include the CSA GMP.

Castncoot (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "New York Wheel, the world's tallest ferris wheel" to "New York Wheel giant Ferris wheel" - it has been claimed that the taller Dubai Eye will be completed first / Ferris is a proper name. Thanks. 86.178.252.112 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 86.178.252.112 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"[Atomic] nucleus of [...] legal immigration?"

Quick question about the first sentence in the article: Why does the word "nucleus" link to atomic nucleus? Perhaps no link or a different word for "center" would be better? 205.178.124.183 (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

About the transportation in NYC

NYC has 3 and not 2 mass transit rail in service 24/7 and in the rest of the USA there are 3 and not 2 mass transit rail that runs 24/7. NYC has 3 of only 6 mass-transit rail lines in the United States that runs 24/7 : the Subway , the PATH and the Staten Island Railroad (the others 3 are the PATCO Speedline in Philadelphia and in NJ, the Red and Blue Lines of the Chicago 'L' and the Green Line of the Minneapolis-St. Paul METRO ). About the rest of the world there are other 2 mass transit in service 24/7 : the Sydney Light Rail and the Copenhagen Metro. Therefore this means that three of the eight rapid transit systems in the world which operate on 24-hour schedules are in New York City !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCFC (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To correct the errors in the article, please.NYCFC (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The article refers to rapid transit specifically, not mass transit as a whole, so the Minnesota and Sydney light rail examples are not part of the comparison. The Copenhagen s-tag is not a metro/rapid transit either. That said, SIR is also 24/7 (even if the frequency drops overnight) and it should be mentioned too. oknazevad (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In the spring 2015 SIR overnight frequency will be 30 minutes ( like SI ferry ), that is 5 minutes less than PATH overnight frequency ( 35 minutes ). About Copenhagen I have written Metro, not S-Tag !!!!!NYCFC (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

When I was referring to the frequency dropping, I was just referring to the SIR trains being less frequent at night than during the day. Low frequency is sometimes used to say a rail system isn't really a metro, but that's not important to the sentence. I misread your mention of Copenhagen, sorry. But I did update the sentence. oknazevad (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The article (third paragraph, specifically) says that the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of the United States and its "democracy".

Should we change that to "representative democracy"? The United States has never really been a democracy, just a representative democracy, which is different. There are multiple types of democracies, and so I believe there should probably be more specification. We're most certainly not a full democracy. Bush wasn't elected by the people, and the Obama administration once intervened in Libya without approval from Congress. But anyways, just wanted to know what others thought. AndrewOne (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2014

186.178.165.128 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

First sentence grammar

"New York is the most populous city in the United States and the nucleus of the premier gateway for legal immigration to the United States[6][7][8]—the New York metropolitan area, one of the most populous urban agglomerations in the world."

The first sentence of the article is grammatically incorrect. It needs to be edited. The problems seem to have arisen when the article was edited to include "nucleus of the premier gateway", which also sounds extremely awkward. First and foremost the sentence needs to be corrected to at least be grammatically correct. Second, I suggest removing "nucleus of the", so that the sentence instead reads "New York is the most populous city in the United States and the premier gateway for legal immigration to the United States."

_________________________________________________________________________

Agreed. I understand the references are about the metro, but it can still be split into two sentences.

And a suggestion: "nucleus" should be changed to "center," which is more encyclopedic. AndrewOne (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why such a thing should even be mentioned in the first sentence. I'd remove the immigration part entirely. 178.41.17.93 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I've changed the title of this talk page section, because there's nothing grammatically "incorrect" about the constructive first sentence. I've also changed "nucleus" in the main article to "center," as has been suggested. At the same time, the relationship between the city and its metro needs to be unambiguously established in the same sentence and not uncoupled. The exact meaning of the sentence as stated is clear. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, just thought of and implemented a rephrased version that is probably closer to what Andrew was alluding to. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Temperature Discrepancy

The climate section states "Summers are typically warm to hot and humid, with July daily mean temperature of 76.5 °F". However the chart right underneath that statement shows the average temperature for July is 84.1 °F. So which is correct, can someone please correct this? 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

77 is halfway between an avg day's high and low. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You misread it. 84.1 is the daily mean MAX temperature. The daily mean is the average of the daily mean MAX and the daily mean MIN. Famartin (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So what is the difference between the two? 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

84 is the average temp of a July midafternoon. 69 is the average temp of a July sunrise. 76 1/2 is the avg of those. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, "average daily mean" versus "average max." Castncoot (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose to move Education, Public health, and Crime sections to Society section

It is true that education, public health (public hospitals, medical care) and crime are largely governmental issues, run by the government, funded by the government, regulated (policies etc.) by the government, but they do not belong in the Law, government and politics sections; they belong in the Society section. Not one of those sections belongs in the Law, government and politics section more than any of the others. Just because the government sets policies for education does not mean the education section belongs there, and just because public health is a primary function of government does not mean it belongs there. Therefore I propose that all these sections be moved to the Society section. Int21h (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you've just misread the article, but the education and public health subsections already ARE in the Society section, not under the Law, government, and politics section. On the other hand, every major American city article includes crime under Law and government; that's simply the most natural place for it. Castncoot (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WHY it is the most natural place? Are you really giving an argumentum ad numerum? Because I'm pretty sure that's a classic fallacy. That something is a certain way is not a good argument that it always must be. Can you expand on "natural place"; why is that so? Why is it any more natural a place for crime than for education and public health, because the fact that those other sections are properly in another section even defeats your argumentum ad populum. Int21h (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And for my reasoning behind the grouping, I point to Category:Society. Out of most, if not all civil jurisdictions/places have politics (law, government) and culture as their own top-level sections instead of under society. (Argumentum ad populum to defeat argumentum ad populum.) Int21h (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your argument timed at 20:45 UTC. (Your following argument, timed at 21:02, seemed flawed in my opinion.) If so entitled, "Crime" would have to be filed under Law (enforcement), while "Public safety" is actually a human resource, like "Public health" or "Education." And notably missing was the firefighting presence in New York City. Therefore, restructured as such. Thanks again. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Human resources" is just but one component. Law and government is just but one component. Law enforcement, by itself, would properly be under government, but as only one component of government, by itself, it should be reduced to two or three words, not even a sentence, in such a small section to keep it balanced. As a more general topic, including its interaction with society and its effects on society, its a "society" topic. "Society" includes its government (and "human resources") aspects, its political (or policy) aspects, its sociological aspects, its economic aspects, etc. "Society" is such a broad category it can contain them all, while each aspect on its own may go into separate categories, when they are together the most proper topic is society. Int21h (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Now you're getting into the realm of the bizarre. Then one could argue that even Transportation falls under "Society." Please try your experimental agenda on some other city article. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it may. As I said, multiple topics would, including economics and "law, government, and politics" and "culture". And as I said, they have been pushed to top-level topics because of the amount of information and subsections they contain. Crime is not so burdened with information and subsections that it needs to be so, though. I have no "experimental agenda", whatever that means, so no. Don't confuse your hate for being incorrect or lacking information or strenuous discussion and others having "experimental agendas". Int21h (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Languages spoken in New York City

Officially, an estimated 200 languages are spoken in New York City, according to the city government (2014): The figure of '800 languages' spoken in NYC was a claim made by the New York based "Endangered Language Alliance" in 2010.

Shouldn't the official and up to date figure be used for this article, as an up-to-date encyclopedic entry? Southlondoneye (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the proposed change. --Jleon (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

References

NYC's ParkScore Ranking

I think there should be a line added about the success of New York City's Park System. The Trust for Public Land, in their 2013 ParkScore ranking, ranked NYC as having the 2nd best park system among the top 50 most populous US Cities. Another notable fact to add is that 96% of NYC's population is within a 10-minute walk of a park - one of the highest percentages in the US (national average = 64%).2013 ParkScore RankingsNY Times Article

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2014

The historic name of New York City is listed as "New Netherlands". It should be "New Amsterdam". MinnBrewer (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I found some evidence for this fact here, at 0:49: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIBRw0dSu34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.138.108 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015

In the settlement infobox, please change the "population_density_sq_mi" argument from 27,778.7 to something reasonable, perhaps computed from the supplied size and population elsewhere in the template, which would yield 17,926.7. The given figure is obviously far too big, and is not drawn from the source cited in the "population_footnotes" argument. Incidentally, a better link for "population_footnotes" would be [5], which is a "bookmark" that executes the necessary database query. The existing reference is just a link to the main page. 68.170.183.170 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 68.170.183.170 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done. The figure is correct. -- Calidum 03:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

In addition to the aforementioned, New York City is probably the nation's only credible recipient of the designation "The City." 174.64.104.171 (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done. I'm not really sure what this means, but lots of other places can be called "the city." -- Calidum 02:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for the date of the opening of the Erie Canal

This is a small thing, but an important one for the history of New York City. The date for the opening of the Erie Canal in the pentultimate paragraph of section 1.1 is not correct or at least misleading. While sections of the canal gradually opened as finished during construction, the entire length of the canal from the Hudson River to Buffalo on Lake Erie was not opened until 1825. Agricultural goods from the Great Lakes region, as stated in this article, could not have traveled to New York City through the short segement of the canal opened in 1819. The 1825 date is a better one to cite for this sentence as written. On this point one might also cite in the article the memoir produced for the massive state-wide celebrations that attended the passage of the first boats from Buffalo to New York City in November 1825. (https://archive.org/details/memoirpreparedat00cold). Perhaps someone who has permission to edit semi-protected articles could make this correction. 160.39.49.161 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Good observation. I also changed the wording to "completion", so that it's better understood that it's the full length of the canal that's meant. I'll take this moment to shill for registering, as after only a few days and edits (which is known as autoconfirmation) you would be able to edit semi-protected articles; it's only anonymous IP editors and brand new registered users that are prevented from editing semi-protected articles. No requirement, and if you don't feel like it, that's fine. I just have a feeling you'd be a good editor to keep around. oknazevad (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of Liberty Island images

Which image below should represent Liberty Island in the Parks section?

14, December 2014

13, November 2007

I prefer the second image for the two simple reasons that: 1) the resolution of the Statue's features is much better, and 2) the top image shows a substantial area of New Jersey's urban area, which would be more appropriate in the Jersey City, New Jersey article as opposed to the New York City article. The reader might get the mistaken impression that the background urban area is Manhattan, when it is actually Jersey City and environs. Castncoot (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The article section is about Liberty Island. The photo should be one of Liberty Island. The shoreline in the rear shows, it is a island. If it was about the Statute that would be one thing, but it mentions Liberty Island, and we should use a photo of Liberty Island. The top photo clearly shows that "it is a island" the second one, does not. It really does not matter that NJ is in the background as New York is in fact surrounded by other states. Anyone that reads the description can clearly understand that is no Manhattan in the rear, that is simply not logical in any way at all. The top image clearly shows the whole island, and it is a more accurate representation of what it looks like today. ℅ ✰WPPilot✰ ^echo

I'd say: Use the first one if you want to represent Liberty Island because it is an aerial view of the whole island; use the second one if you want to represent Statue of Liberty from a close-up, straightforward angle. The Statue hasn't changed much in 7 years, except it's gotten greener. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. The bot sent me. As per the others, if it's about Liberty Island, it should be the first photo. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agree that it should be the first if it's talking about the island, as it shows the island as an island, and the whole island is the subject of the image. The second would be good for the Statue of Liberty article (if it needed it). Any concern about what people think the background is can be addressed with the caption. Of cropping. oknazevad (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Agree as well: if the subject is the island, then the island itself should be shown. The first image works better for that. )Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed per consensus above. talk→ WPPilot  17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Re-captioned, reluctantly. Hopefully this picture will function as a placeholder for the time being. It would be far more helpful if someone could procure a Liberty Island image with the new One World Trade Center in the background instead, for an article entitled "New York City". Since the subject in the Parks section seems to be the island, it will not matter that the statue would then be facing perpendicularly, as it has in many classic pictures with the former Twin Towers in the background. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• That photo has already gained enough support to become a featured photo, "a placeholder" your a hoot! Pier 6 has Helicopter's available to non pilots like yourself (at only $600+ per hour, per person including the pilot! min of 5 people required) if you would like to rent one by all means go right ahead and fly it into the spot that you would like to take the picture from. I do not think that having NYC in the photo is necessary, as the others mentioned above. Cheers and have a nice flight! http://vimeo.com/114738373 talk→ WPPilot  15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• If someone could procure an updated version of the following image, i.e., with the new One WTC in the Lower Manhattan background for this particular article, that would really be helpful, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Do you want the phone number to my friends at the helicopter company? talk→ WPPilot  04:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Castncoot: - Here is an Image of the new One World Trade Center with the Statue of Liberty and Lower Manhattan skyline. File:Statue_of_Liberty_with_One_World_Trade_Center.jpg. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominating as a good article?

I added all missing citations for this article and I personally think it meets good article criteria.Should we nominate it as a good article?--ChamithN (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@ChamithN: The article was delisted back in July 2013. It's been quite a while, but we should still make sure those issues have been addressed. Personally I think the article is in fairly good shape. Some unreferenced content here and there, maybe rewrite the list of city parks into prose. The lead may also have too many citations. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Not only is 264 kb absurd for article length the sourcing doesn't look that strong. It would need a lot of work even for GA. There's lots of bullet points too which are ill-advised. If it's protected from people working on it then it's never going to get to GA level... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blofeld on the first two points but disagree on the latter. You have to protect this article, it's a famous city and there are many haters, maybe.--Aichik (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree with you, it's better to protect it, I'm hoping to do the same with Paris once I restore it to GA, but the decent editors here won't be able to edit it. Would somebody be interested in working on a condensed version at Wikipedia:New York City/Sandbox or something? I know NYC is one of the biggest cities in world, but no article really should be 264 kb long. We should be aiming for 200 max. The main article should be a highly tuned and impeccably sourced/researched basic overview with lots of more detailed sub articles linked. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in. I'd be glad support anyone who is working to bring this article to GA state.--Chamith (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Any article that makes dubious claims, such as "New York has been described as THE cultural and financial capital of the world," regardless of what a few sources say, is nowhere near ready for GA status. This is not only self-promotion, it is entirely false when London, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore etc, all have their own world-class cultural and financial attributes--some of which surpass New York's (average 5 year foreign direct investment transactions in London and Singapore, for example, rank 328 and 359 respectively, crushing New York's average of only 143. 143 is hardly the stuff of THE supposed financial capital of the world). New York is a fantastic American city, it pulses with vibrancy and excitement. It is undoubtedly one of the greatest cities on Earth. Can it be rightly called THE financial and cultural capital of the world, though? No. A world-class city like New York deserves a world-class article minus the emotion and self-promotion. This is why this article does not meet GA criteria. PünchastiaR (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

PünchastiaR This article only says that it has been described as the cultural and financial capital of the world. It doesn't say that it is indeed the world cultural and financial hub. People reading this article might have different perspectives about NYC. Those who don't agree with the provided sources can neglect that claim. Even other articles about cities such as London, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore can mention the exact same thing if it can be supported by sources.--Chamith (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ChamithN I disagree. Even if one or two sources "describe" New York as THE cultural and financial capital of the world, this is highly subjective. To be truly encyclopedic, objectivity should be the name of the game. If all the above mentioned cities described themselves as THE cultural and financial capitals of the world, and even used sources, Wikipedia's quality would be greatly diminished. I invite you to look at WP: WORDS and more specifically the section on puffery. Again, this article needs to be cleaned up before it can be considered for GA. PünchastiaR (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@PünchastiaR: I agree that it's need to be cleaned up to meet GA. And what you said about WP: WORDS is reasonable enough. I'd like to see what other editors has to say about this. But for now I agree with you.--Chamith (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Name of article and references pointing to it

The name of the city is not, nor has ever been, "New York City." It is just "New York." Yes, it is commonly referred to as "New York City" in contradistinction to "New York State," but the word "City" does not belong to the proper name unlike, for instance, Kansas City or Missouri City. This article should simply be named "New York, New York" and this is how it ought to be referenced in other articles linking to this page as well. 2001:470:1F07:383:16:AA7C:DA44:626D (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comment alluded to the main point: We use the WP:COMMONNAME and not the official one. Also, New York, New York generally refers only to Manhattan. -- Calidum 02:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The only ones who refer to only Manhattan as "New York, New York" is the U.S. Postal Service, but that has to do with the peculiarities of addressing mail: basically anything with a 100, 101, or 102 ZIP code is New York, NY; 104 is Bronx, NY; 114 is Jamaica, NY; 113 is Flushing, NY; etc. I've lived here all my life and New Yorkers refer to the city as "New York" or "the City." "New York City" is a name used by outsiders who are ignorant of the actual name. And in any case, the common name policy is asinine anyway. Any real encyclopedia would file the article under the actual name. I have an old Britannica that has the article under "New York (city)." I have another encyclopedia that lists the city under "New York" and the state under "New York (state)." Wikipedia is a great resource, but it suffers from credibility problems. This is one of them. 2001:470:1F07:383:92F:9664:A0C:97DC (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority of people on Earth don't live in New York City, so it makes sense to use the name that "outsiders" use, now doesn't it? In any case, the title of this article is a good example of both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, so there's really no reason to ever change it. MBD123 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Color of Manhattan on Map and in Table Under the Heading "Boroughs"

I don't know how to edit this but the color of Manhattan on the map and in color of Manhattan in the adjoining table (both immediately under the heading "Boroughs") need to be coordinated with each other. All other colors for boroughs match between the map and the table but not for Manhattan (one is green and the other is blue). One of those two colors should be used for both the map and the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.167.226 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

New York City it is also known as "The Capitol of the World"

See Nicknames of New York City. Castncoot (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

I came to look at the intro of this article after someone complained it was promotional. I couldn't really see it, apart from the word "premier", which means "first in importance" and has clear connotations of superiority. So I changed it to "main". Now I'm told that's inaccurate, that it isn't the main gateway for legal immigration. So I must ask, in what way is it the "premier" gateway? Deb (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Deb - I'm happy to hear you also agree that that this article is not promotional. As one of the more common contributors to this article, it means very much to me to have this article be thoroughly well-cited and non-promotional, and I believe this has long been the case. (To anyone who might contemplate otherwise, one also has to remember that New York City intrinsically has many, many notable superlatives; one should also note that the substance and format of this article really haven't changed much in the past few years, other than statistical updates, and those who rarely edit this article would understandably not realize this.) Regarding your good-faith edit, the reason "main" is inaccurate is that it implies that other U.S. gateways don't receive substantial immigration as well, but there are others which also do. Premier simply means "the top," which New York is, although "top" sounds childish and non-encyclopedic for the lede. Hope that answers your question. Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It tells me what your reason is, but, to me, the word "main", implies that there are other possible ways in. "Premier", on the other hand, is a very subjective term (almost on a par with "prestigious"). Now, if you mean "the top" in the sense of "most used" or even "most popular", why not say so?Deb (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Premier means "top" or "most important." In this case, that emphasis actually is needed for accuracy, as New York receives over twice as many legal immigrants as second-place Los Angeles. "Main" implies more than half of the entire total for the U.S., which New York, however, is not. "Most popular" is in fact a good way to phrase it, but this was passed over when we as editors synthesized this sentence around a couple of years ago, I believe because of the apparent repetition in the sentence ("most populous," "most popular," and then back to "most populous"). "Most used" - that doesn't sound encyclopedic. The numbers are factually what they are, and the total should be conveyed with due weight. I feel that "premier" is spot on here. Castncoot (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Cohesion of first sentence

Castncoot, I noticed you [6] reverted my edit to the first sentence (summary: fix cohesion of first sentence), with the summary "already cohesive". I thought my edit was fine, and I was wondering how you thought my edit messed with the apparent cohesiveness of the sentence. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 00:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I actually thought that your edit was a reasonable one! A group of us had taken some time to work on this critical first sentence quite a long time ago, and one of the goals was to get this highly significant point across right off the bat, rather than making it a "lower down" issue. Also, it's actually the metro area that is cited, not the city itself, even if the majority of new legal immigrants likely dock in the city first. So we'd be trading off both accuracy and emphasis for no significant change in cohesion. But thank you. Castncoot (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

New York City linguistics

I thought that there was no source to back the fact that NYC is the most linguistically diverse city in the world until I carefully revised the sources. Not to mention the ones you added. I think it is obvious I made a mistake in the page. (N0n3up (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC))

No problem! (Will also copy this small thread from this (my) talk page to the article's Talk page.) Castncoot (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of New York City

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there really an "official" name for New York City?

What document have you seen that officially assigned the name "New York City" to the collective 5 counties/boroughs? Must have been an official of the State, unless all 5 counties actually signed off on a joint document. Also, keep in mind that the official county name for the Manhattan Borough alone is "New York". Therefore, citing "New York" alone invites confusion! 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:9522:B36D:1596:6D78 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The city charter calls it "the City of New York". But official names are not as important common names around here. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2015

Metro surface is marked as:

• Metro	13,318 sq mi (34,490 km2)

It should be:

• Metro	13.318 sq mi (34.490 km2)

17.72.127.43 (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia always uses a comma for digit grouping. See MOS:DIGITS RudolfRed (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

FAQ #3

Any thoughts on whether the question on why this article isn't titled New York (city) should be included on the FAQ?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The city is commonly known as New York City, not (ever) as New York (city). Castncoot (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The city is officially named New York. It is not like Kansas City or Missouri City or Texas City. The word "city" is not part of the name. However, people from outside of New York often refer to it as "New York City." When this was debated in the past, you would have people who actually live in and around the city of New York on the side of calling the page "New York (city)" or "New York, New York" but the outsiders think they know better than the people who live here. Personally, I think that's B.S. People call Los Angeles "L.A." more than they call it "Los Angeles," but no one seriously considers changing the title of that page to "L.A." Let us people from the city of New York decide what our city should be called! 67.82.27.217 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Really, you never hear people from NYC call it "New York City"? I find that hard to believe, as a lifelong area resident myself. If anything, it's more common here, because we actually know (and care) about the state. Of course, most people in the area just refer to it as "the City" more often than not, but to assert that "New York City" is unused by people in and near NYC is frankly ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This thing again? New York is the official name for NEW YORK COUNTY. COUNTY. What you propose sidelines the four counties (boroughs) and 6 of the 8 million people in New York City that don't live in Manhattan (New York County).Laurelpeter122 (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead section too stuffed with boring stats

Does anyone else find the lead section of this article just too boring, filled with population stats, area stats, GDP stats etc? "56 million tourists in 2014" - well whoopie, but can't this gem be dumped in the Economy section. "Millions of tourists" is enough of a summary for me. Batternut (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, what do you expect? It's a freaking city, population is the single most important fact about a city. Do you propose taking that out? Area must be a top 5 fact about a city, like location, population and age. It is financially important in the world economy (second to Tokyo) These facts are interesting. The number of tourists is mentioned because it is probably at least near an all-time record. Tourism is an important industry and is the only experience most people will ever have with this city. If it just said "millions of tourists" you would save seven characters and not be able to tell the incredible amount of tourists entering (the entire native population in under 2 months, the entire non-3rd world would have to come twice a lifetime to reach this rate). I will read to see what else is in the lead that you didn't mention. If maybe it doesn't mention that New York is a cultural, art, music, theatre, fashion, advertising, media and dance center then it should (properly sourced). That would probably make you very happy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's just not necessary for example to have the figures in the infobox repeated in the prose. Keep the bits that say it has the second biggest city economy in the world, that the gross metropolitan product is the biggest in the US and behind the GDP of only twelve nations, and that is is the most populous city in the US and one of the most populous urban agglomerations in the world. Batternut (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

1. True, WP city articles rarely read like a tour de force of writing but some people are just easily bored, this probably survived years without anyone complaining. The most easily bored probably wouldn't like to read encyclopedias at all (and probably wouldn't use WP much anyway or be active in the project) so you have to stop somewhere and not dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.

Let us not get confused - the target audience are the readers, not nerdy editors. Batternut (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant that doing this everywhere would not discourage people to use WP much i.e. read, or even harm the project much cause they wouldn't be interested anyway. Should we write like a children's book so people who haven't learned much English can have an easy time too? No, (especially not since there's a simple.wikipedia.org for kids and ESL learners). Should we write for people who don't like to read encyclopedia articles? I don't know what to say to people who don't like the encyclopedia style other than find a guide written without stats or something. It seems like you'll never want to actually read the article anyway, or at least any part with stats in it. I would bet the Encyclopedia Britannica article on NYC even would have stats in the lead but I can't remember. If so, then we should follow the master. We're not going to remove every number from the lead if Britannica does it because one person objects. I agree though that it could be a bit shorter and cutting out the fat could do that even without discarding information. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad bet, I'm afraid. Read the Britannica intro here. At least, the stats are listed at the bottom and out of the prose, whereas we put them in the infobox (which the Britannica doesn't have). Batternut (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(I wouldn't have bet a lot of money). I have my doubts that that was the print version's lead. Einstein has written for Britannica. 5 US Presidents did it. People that started schools of economics, almost started a new Communism, discovered elements, 110 Nobel Prize winners. This however was written by someone old enough to be retired or semi-retired (professor emeritus) who couldn't get a better job than Bronx Community College. My train passed near that every day and it's in a ghetto. BCC is not even the main college of the CUNY system and that college (CC) is like Harvard compared to BCC (but it's still in Harlem. I wouldn't run 700 feet down one empty street I saw near CC in daytime for a billion dollars if a starship would teleport me out at the end). Then NYU is loads better than CC, Columbia's very good & better than NYU, and Yale is better than Columbia and we're still in the metro area. But they couldn't find anybody better than a college across the Harlem River from the 204 St housing projects to write the article for them? I'm not trying to put down colleges or anyone that'd find NYU classes hard but I have to tell it like it is to explain my doubts. Also, Britannica has not actually been British for over a century, just the spelling is. Since it's American you'd think they'd find a better author for our number one city. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You can criticize the Britannica's New York article author as much as you like, but keeping population and area stats out of the intro is clearly the Britannica style: see also London, Paris, Delhi. And it's a whole load more readable than this lead section (though too brief for my liking), IMHO. Batternut (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Too brief for my liking, too. Paris is written by someone who's getting a bachelor's degree, lol. I don't think they're paying these people much, otherwise, how would they make money? Hope you buy a CD-ROM? It's free! (the online version is). (They haven't sold the book set in years). At least U. of Illinois is fairly good. Pretty girl, might become a great Paris scholar but an undergraduate just wouldn't make sense if they were still selling print encyclopedias for almost a thousand euros. I think I'll look at the New York article in the library to find out if their lead style is like those links or not (which still have like one stat in the prose). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I criticize the clown college that Bronx Community College is? Rampant cheating, tests are reused for years, dictatorial nursing department, professors that fail anyone who brings this up, graffiti on the walls.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Student whinging isn't unique to the BCC. We're a little off-topic here though. A comparison of the print copy Britannica and the web version would be interesting though, by way of exploring 'encyclopedia style'. Batternut (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll post a New York article photo. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The interesting land area of NYC is in the lead.

Iraq.

Iran.

Ireland.

I wish I remembered to find out if that guy actually wrote that or only took over after they couldn't afford to pay the original author to keep it updated anymore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Physical measurements, historical dates, but no ephemeral stats such as population and GDP. Batternut (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

But remember,

1. Their NYC lead is short. There's not a big difference when you look at words per number.

2. A Britannica article is only updated every few years. They print a yearbook every year with ephemeral stats. I'm not sure if they go down to city level or not but there's a huge table with ephemeral stats for all 200 countries on Earth. They also say who are the politicians in every country at print time and write about events that happened that year and stuff. Wikipedia adds that to the article cause we're not paper and EB probably would've did it too if they had that Harry Potter magic paper that can change after it's printed.

3. One thing that I've noticed reading encyclopedias is that Britannica is the most old-fashioned, more so than the Encyclopedia Americana or the Collier's Encyclopedia or the World Book. EB is really traditional, there's a 1768 on the spine, yo. Besides how the text sounds, their longer articles have a very small lead size to article size ratio, which might have a lower number density in some leads cause they often seem to try to sound as much like a grand treatise as possible. Great literature like War and Peace or something isn't heavy on the numbers is it? They know they can't write like it's Ancient Rome with few numbers all the way through on a modern subject so they'd only write leads, overviews, and humanities aspects of the article's topic like that. Yes, their longer articles like "United States" are really, really, really fucking good (over 300 pages chock full of vivid descriptions, deep insights and numbers like the width of the thin grooves and groove section of Pennsylvania) but since the average nonfiction writing style has probably gotten more number-y over history and EB is the most conservative encyclopedia then EB leads' number to word ratio should not be a maximum and in fact should not be reduced (no stat-less leads). (I think that's why I always preferred Encyclopedia Americana when the subject is narrower like "chlorine" instead of "geological history", EB is great at the big picture and vast subjects). Or think of it this way, EB for encyclopedias is kind of like the Lord of the Rings series is for movies. A masterpiece but we know it's more old fashioned than the average high grossing film. My library doesn't have encyclopedias besides EB to compare, though. That would be better than endless informed speculating. (I think they have the World Book but that's for children). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

2. I always thought the infoboxes were mostly for people who either want to look up one thing quick, just want a executive summary/crash course and don't mind missing a deeper understanding, or who aren't interested enough to read something longer.

Everyone wants quick access, and the infoboxes do it pretty well - I do not criticize them. Batternut (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I. That's the cheat sheet version. I use them often when I don't even want the lead and I like them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

3. And some people want figures in their prose. If you remove all figures for a city as superlative as NY it would look like a promotional brochure, some figures sounds more professional and encyclopedic (promotional brochures may technically be professional but they belong in the professional bullshitting category that anyone with a brain tunes out, have you read promotional materials? They'll say things like we're within a 1 day drive of half of Americans (that's because you're in West Virginia), are centrally located within 5 hours from these numerous big cities (that's cause you're as far as you can get in the East from anything important), have a jet airport (who doesn't, also commercial flights stopped 10 yrs ago cause they were unprofitable with the $200/ticket subsidy), and have very low costs (cause your town is dying). There's few aspects of life that New York isn't a notable center for, just the GDP facts is a whole paragraph. Whatever's the most important city on Earth when an encyclopedia is written will have an overabundance of awesomeness on its article, break it up with some numbers so that it sounds more objective and disinterested instead of like you're just mentioning everything done by man.

The article body is the ideal place for endless figures. Keep the superlatives in the header for sure - Biggest this, best that do not need the figures, and are clearer without them. Batternut (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not endless figures. This is an article with too much figures. Scroll to the end, it's worth it. Since you have a problem with them there's still this: Because NY's good at so many things it's hard to make it sound very like WP:TONE and very not like WP:PEACOCK, a stat every handful of sentences would help, I don't see how you could confuse anyone doing that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Frozen orbit doesn't have any numbers at all in the lead section. And it is very readable. Try and focus on the lead section please - that's what I'm talking about. Batternut (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

After the readable part it isn't. I can't understand what the hell that is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

4. You should put more information when the cost is not great (like in length, clarity or undue weight or detail). This is an encyclopedia so by necessity the consensus of people that like to write encyclopedias gets to decide what's too much detail and how long is too long. (you'll notice that it doesn't say the millions of tourists to the decimal places for example and I agree that two digits is best) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

From the MOS The lead section should ... avoid over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

... The current lead section has: 'as defined by both the Metropolitan Statistical Area (20.1 million residents)[5] and the Combined Statistical Area (23.6 million residents)' - is this over-specific, and better suited to the body of the article, IMHO. Batternut (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That could've been written without all the fat as "by both MSA population (20.1 mil) and CSA (23.6 mil)." Anyone that'd care probably knows what that means, anyone that doesn't knows it couldn't affect the broader point and moves on. You might not know what those mean but if you're going to mention a metro population at all though you should mention both because they're important distinctions. For the people who don't go to the suburbs the MSA is not the metro area, the CSA is. Nothing in Connecticut or Pennsylvania is in the NYC MSA but Connecticut's in the Tri-State Area for crying out loud, and you see ads for cheap PA homes that say 90 min. bus commutes all the time. If you actually lived out of the MSA though the connection to the urban area's not strong and it could be as little as like 5% of your county commuting there that makes it NYC CSA. It seems hard to throw that out because metro pop. is such an important fact. Do note that there's just so much to say about NY that the lead might have to be a little long. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, look at Manhattan, New York State, United States, United Kingdom, France, Jerusalem, Pluto, Human.. They all have numbers in the lead and long leads. Look at how many nerdy stats are in the lead of Jerusalem! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I make no complaint about long leads, just how readable they are. I'm sure the articles you quote can be improved; Manhattan for example repeats its population in 4 different places - yawn! Batternut (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

..London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Chicago, Rio de Janeiro (a bit), Las Vegas.. Boring numbers (some more than others). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I like the style of the Wikipedia NYC article better. It uses specific and precise details to support its points, which are rather interesting claims about New York's standing in the world. The Britannica style seems too vague and sweeping...until it piles on with an un-prose-like stream of stats at the end. Bleh. As for the specific point of quoting both the MSA and CSA populations and GDPs, I agree those parts are pushing it and could be streamlined. The details could be deferred to the infobox or the Economy section as appropriate. -- Beland (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard fare for a megacity lead, not much different in basic format from others. New York City just happens to be chock full of superlatives. Castncoot (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I made the metro area population claim more interesting...turns out NYC has 50% more people than LA, which surprised me and kinda explains a lot. If you like that and want me to try and foomf any other particular passages, let me know. -- Beland (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Boring? That's an opinion. Personally, I like this style as well. If not for stats, then readers would be wondering, "Why is New York City important?" Epic Genius (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I ‘’agree with Beland and Catmncoot too. Beland says it better than me. Do note also that while EB is a little old school their style is closer to Wikipedia than the online version, as can be seen in these photos. I don't know why the online version just sort of ejaculates stats at the end.

NYC.

Paris

London

Los Angeles

There's no Lankevich in the index of Britannica authors.

This is also the featured article style. While it's hard to find the few major cities in that forest of place articles I did eventually find Washington D.C., Houston, Seattle, Boston, and Cleveland in the list and they all have stats in the lead.

Maybe the two nations should be changed to country to avoid saying nation three times in the same sentence and one "nation" can be dropped to say "twelve and eleven countries respectively" to make it shorter. (since the respectively makes it clear that the twelve also refers to countries). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed the nation thing. -- Beland (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the world's largest natural harbors

The cited source (a History Channel video) mentions this claim as a throwaway line. I would be more convinced by a source that had some expertise on harbors in general, rather than a infotainment documentary setting up a dramatic story. It would be very nice to actually link to a list of harbors and some measurements of size. -- Beland (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. The statement, source, citation, and reliability all meet threshold criteria. Will revert for these obvious reasons. Castncoot (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beland: I cited another source. I hope that will help you to clear away any confusions. -- Chamith (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The new source is a LIFE Magazine article from 1945 which claims "it is by far the world's best and biggest natural harbor". If you believe ask.com [7] the largest is Sydney, which would mean LIFE is factually incorrect, and casts doubt on the reliability of the geography scholarship of popular magazines. This casual searcher agrees with Sydney and doesn't list NYC in the top 6: [8] I think this is a most interesting casual investigation: [9] (which also doesn't list NYC). They point out that there are a number of cities that claim to have the largest harbors in the world on their web sites, and obviously they can't all be right. I'm beginning to wonder whether NYC is in fact on the world top 10 or 25 at all, or if "one of the world's largest natural harbors" is just puffery which has been picked up by popular journalists. That's why I'd like to see where NYC actually ranks on a list made by some reliable method. -- Beland (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read our rules on reliable sourcing and the prohibition of original research because you're using unreliable sources and original research to suggest a reliable source is incorrect. Calidum T|C 05:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am, in fact, the original author of WP:RS. I do not find the puffery-friendly History Channel video and 1945 LIFE Magazine to be particularly reliable sources; they don't even say where they got their information. I wouldn't replace their conclusions with those taken from even less reliable sources; just pointing out that the waters are muddied (pun intended) by puffery. Heh, I see that ask.com cites a local promotional web site (quite vulnerable to puffery) as well as our own Port Jackson, which does not have a reference (now requested!). The best solution is probably to either remove or weaken the claim until a reliable source can be found, such as saying that New York is located on "a large natural harbor". -- Beland (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it lies on one of the world's largest natural harbors is reliably supported by the sources. I would agree with you that one could not go as far as saying "the largest." Castncoot (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Lacks "Criticism" section

I believe that, New York City being so popular, dense, powerful, etc, a criticism section should be included with quotes and sources from people who are critical of NYC's various attributes, like its culture, politics, economics, etc, so that this Wikipedia article gets a much needed dose of third party views on why the city poses problems for certain people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.185.200 (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't space for such a vast endeavor here, and it's not routinely seen in city articles, although every city will have many criticisms; but feel free to start a new article for that. Best, Castncoot (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Placement of template {{NYC boroughs}} - in lead and/or in #Buroughs section?

Hi all, thanks for all the good faith edits. I wanted to bring this up in the talk section because I think it could benefit from a wider discussion. Currently, details of the Bronx does not appear in this article until one scrolls down ([Page down]) 25 times to the #Buroughs section. I think template {{NYC boroughs}} (or alternatively the useful map [File:5 Boroughs Labels New York City Map.svg]) provides an excellent summary of the five buroughs and should be placed in the lead section as is there is plenty of white space there beside the table of contents. (See Manhattan, Bronx, etc.) It can also remain (be repeated) in the #Buroughs section since that section is so far down the article. Alternatively, the #Buroughs section could be the first section in the article following the lead and before #History. I think if one is not from NYC one would have little idea about the Bronx, Queens, etc. reading this article. Facts707 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Careful statement

"...several small cities (of fewer than 100,000) in adjacent Hudson County, New Jersey are more dense overall, as per the 2000 Census.[208] Geographically co-extensive with New York County, the borough of Manhattan's population density of 71,672 people per square mile[209] (27,673/km²) makes it the highest of any county in the United States[210] and higher than the density of any individual American city."

It's easy to see that New York County would be denser than any whole county, but similarly to the small city clause that leads demographers to formulate cutoff points, is there really no (most likely micro tiny) small city anywhere in the country that is hyper dense. Remember, "city" can be as small and outlandish as 6 to 18 people (though that one is extremely sparse), and speaking of the wild car-oriented sprawled out least pedestrian safe state of Florida, there are small cities like North Bay Village (I swear it's not a village) that was a big deal in the 60s and Sunny Isles Beach, both no greater than one square mile and with population densities over 20,000. If 500 people are in one high-rise taking up about an acre of land, that is a population density of 320,000 per square mile. That is going to an unlikely extreme, but there may be some city or place that could incorporate out there that falls between a North Bay Village and a city the size of the Willis Tower. B137 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2015

www.newyork.com.pl - polish langage site and photos about New York. Thetom (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:NONENGEL. As it's not an official link, non-English language external links should not be added to the English Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118035924/http://www.nlc.org:80/build-skills-networks/resources/cities-101/forms-of-municipal-government to http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-networks/resources/cities-101/forms-of-municipal-government

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This link now does lead somewhere useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)