This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can Staten Island Technical High School be added to the list of public high schools in the education section? Not only is it one of the specialized high schools, but it was named #32 on US News' 100 top high schools http://www.usnews.com/listings/high-schools/new_york/staten_island_technical_high_school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.95.217 ( talk) 06:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

how many people are under the age of 18??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.79.143 ( talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What about religious denominations? This article could definitely use a demographics section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.150.103 ( talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Demographics be #6, like most of the other city pages? RegaL the Proofreader ( talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

possibly under sister cities? new york has been granted the Freedom of the City of Liverpool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.172.243 ( talk) 11:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There probably should be information about how New York City has rivalries with other American cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston. Although New York City may be #1 in many respects, New York City does have rivalries with other American cities. One example is that other cities can rival with New York City by having a more successful NFL, NBA, or MLB sports team.
Native94080 ( talk) 08:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Native94080

New York, New York specifically identifies the Borough of Manhattan. "New York City" refers to all five boroughs of the City of New York. Please stop arbitrarily reverting my LEGITIMATE edits! This means you, JamesMLane! 24.168.116.169 ( talk) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaking the postal service's usage for the term with what it actually means. NYC is officially the "City of New York," therefore "New York, New York" refers to the entire municipality. -- Jleon ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then... Using your logic, I should be referring to the place where I live as "New York, New York" and not " Staten Island, New York"! Sorry, but your assertion that "New York, New York" refers to the entire City of New York, and not just Manhattan, is just plain DUMB! 24.168.116.169 ( talk) 13:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, as was noted in the prior discussion about these issues, the general Wikipedia naming convention for the U.S. is that City-name, State-name is where the article is. Someone familiar with that convention would enter "New York, New York" to find the article about the entire city, so that title should redirect to New York City. A reader who wants the Manhattan article would probably enter Manhattan. JamesMLane  t  c 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised more editors haven't chimed in just to reinforce the silliness of the argument. Using your logic, I might ask you if the place you should live should be referred to as " Staten Island, New York" or " New York State". You actually live in Staten Island, New York, New York, and New York State all at the same time. Staten Island is your borough, New York is your city, and New York is also your state (which is why people often call usually the city "New York, New York" or " New York City"...either way it's the same thing). I think the argument you're making, or should be making, is that people (especially the postal service) do often mean Manhattan when they say "New York, New York". That doesn't make Jleon's assertion dumb, it just means that people use the phrase in different contexts. Referring to the city, "New York, New York" means "New York City"; referring to the postal district, "New York, New York" means "Manhattan." It depends on the context. As far as I hear it in general usage, I generally don't hear people say "New York, New York" unless it's in song...it which case you'd have to ask Frank Sinatra what he was singing about. -- In Defense of the Artist ( talk) 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as pointed out by OP, he lives on Staten Island; in Staten Island, New York; in the City of New York or New York City; and in New York state all at the same time. At no point does he live in New York, New York, except when talking to out-of-towners who have a thing for Liza Manelli musicals. - LlywelynII ( talk) 11:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New York, New York is definitely Manhattan-only. Brooklyn is Brooklyn, NY, Queens is neighborhood by neighborhood (Woodside, NY), etc. New York, New York can only ever refer to Manhattan, never the whole of New York City. Technically "New York City" is only Manhattan and the other boroughs the "Greater City of New York", but that's splitting hairs. Anyway, people shouldn't edit these articles unless they actually know what they're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.124.213 ( talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have lived in New York City my entire life and I have never heard the term "Greater City of New York". For about 15 years after the city was consolidated, the official name of the municipality was the "City of Greater New York". That was abandoned around 1915 or so if I recall correctly. The official term is "City of New York". The postal terms are irrelevant. New York City applies to the entirety of the city, as its wide usage in all things public and private exemplify. The New York Yankees are in the Bronx. The New York Police Department services the entire city. The list goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.98.2 ( talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The confusion arises from the names of the post offices that serve New York. At one time New York (city) was contained solely on the island of Manhattan. During this period a post office was established. Post offices are generally named for the city, town, village or island where they are located, followed by the state. Being in New York city, in New York state, the name of the post office was "New York, New York." Separate post offices were established in the separate city of Brooklyn and the various towns such as Jamaica, Flushing, etc. When the city was consolidated in 1898, the post offices remained separate entities. One reason was that there were streets with the same name in more than one borough. Should a letter addressed to 123 Fulton Street or 25 Fifth Avenue go to Brooklyn or Manhattan? This was before Zip Codes. Therefore letters are addressed to "New York, New York" for addresses in Manhattan, "Brooklyn, New York" for that borough, "Flushing, New York" for northeastern Queens, etc. But all of that has nothing to do with the name of the city since 1898. The city's name is New York and it is in the state of New York, so "New York, New York" is appropriate to refer to the entire city for any purpose other than addressing a letter. To my knowledge "Greater City of New York" has never been an official name. Station1 ( talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no confusion: New York City = Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island. New York, NY = Manhattan only. Period. Mangomon ( talk) 01:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This. - LlywelynII ( talk) 11:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah yo, its all NYC... why do you think that New York Transit serves all five boroughs... why do you think NYPD is called NYPD in Brooklyn instead of Brooklyn Police... ´cause its all New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.127.211 ( talk) 04:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone find a place where to add this picture? I have nothing against the current image in the infobox but I think that in this case finding a section or an another article about New York City where to put this picture will be a sign to show that we care of the vote of editors on common (2nd picture of the year 2007). And it's stupid to let such a beautiful picture out of the articles about New York ;). Thank you Mrpouetpouet ( talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I really prefer it to the current infobox image too because it gives a more impressive picture of New York. And because there is already a cityscape in the article. Look at Paris. They added an impressive picture in the infobox not some kind of cityscape. But that's my POV ^_^.

A few days ago I came here looking for what kind of city picture should be in the infobox, I prefer the picture that was there before, the darker one, not the one from the top of the rock. Both are good, but the darker one is amazing. It really suits NYC IMO. The current cityscape one is just run of the mill, something you might find on a postcard, while the other one is something you would find in an art gallery. NYC should be so lucky to have such a great picture. Anawrahta ( talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The dark picture is an amazing picture, but loses almost all of its impact when scaled down. Carlo ( talk) 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

-Just my opinion, the current pic is an awful, awful shot for the main pic of the NYC article. Its an extremely limited view of Manhattan and may look great from an ART perspective, but looks out of place for an encyclopedia article! It barely even depicts NYC, as the cities most noteable buildings, Empire State Building and Chrysler Building, are completely absent from the shot.

The "top of the rock cropped" night pic is a great pic, but it already appears in a full panoramic version in the article.. I replaced it with the day image of the top of the rock shot, which has a wider viewing angle since it is not a CROPPED pic. It stood here for quite a while without any objections.

.

A far more accurate depiction of NYC. Day shot, tons of notable buildings are present, and the clarity and overall scope of the cityscape are much more accurate than the other shot.. Dogma5 ( talk) 16:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Still.. i think there HAS to be a better picture out there, so if anyone has any more pics available that are outside wiki commons, please share! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought.. would anyone object to the Cropped Top of the Rock shot, but to avoid redundancy with the panorama, replace the FULL top of rock shot it with this instead? This is probably the most oustanding depiction of the city anyway!

Dogma5 ( talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current pic. but I agre that there has to be a better picture out there ;) Let's just find it. Mrpouetpouet ( talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The HRD image (top right above) should not be used in this article, IMO, as the tonemapping is completely unrealistic which detracts from the encyclopedic value of the image. Kaldari ( talk) 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that there are a lot of Italian- and Spanish-speaking people in New York, but does the top of the article really need to include how to say new in Spanish and Italian? Reywas92 ^Talk 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed. -- Golbez ( talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008 This box: view •  talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.-- Pharos ( talk) 23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I added up the population of all the boroughs (Staten Island, Manhattan, Brooklyn, The Bronx, and Queens) and I do NOT get a population over eight million. This is the population I came up with,7374577. While undoubtedbly the most populous city in The US, it does not seem the population is accurate, unless the populations for the boroughs are wrong.

What year is the population of the boroughs for? The last census was 2000, but there are official census estimates for the whole city as of 2006, which might explain the discrepancy. -- Golbez ( talk) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added up all the populations of the inbox in each boroughs main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 ( talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read that the city was possibly the world's most populous city from about 1925 to 1950; this should at least warrant a mention since numbers are sketchy, though only London was a rival at the time in that regard and thus numbers should be easier to varify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.136.175 ( talk) 09:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it that one city can cross several county lines? Are there any other cities in the US that do the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 ( talk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta, Georgia occupies part of Fulton County AND part of DeKalb County. Kansas City straddles two states -- Kansas and Missouri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.8.10 ( talk) 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City, KS and Kansas City, MO are technically and administratively seperate cities, even though they have the same name and are on opposite of a river from each other.

You're right about Atlanta, but New York is certainly the only city to be co-terminous with (entirely cover) more than one county. 193.195.75.20 ( talk) 16:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Education Main article: Education in New York City

Columbia University's Low Memorial Library.The city's public school system, managed by the New York City Department of Education, is the largest in the United States. About 1.1 million students are taught in more than 1,200 separate primary and secondary schools.[110] There are approximately 900 additional privately run secular and religious schools in the city, including some of the most prestigious private schools in the United States.[111]

Though it is not often thought of as a college town, there are about 594,000 university students in New York City, the highest number of any city in the United States.[112] In 2005, three out of five Manhattan residents were college graduates and one out of four had advanced degrees, forming one of the highest concentrations of highly educated people in any American city.[113] Public postsecondary education is provided by the City University of New York, the nation's third-largest public university system, and the Fashion Institute of Technology, part of the State University of New York. New York City is also home to such notable private universities as Barnard College, Columbia University, Cooper Union, Fordham University, New York University, ---Pace University, St. John's University,--- The New School, and Yeshiva University. The city has dozens of other smaller private colleges and universities, including many religious and special-purpose institutions, such as The Juilliard School and The School of Visual Arts.

Pace University and St. John's University are private universities in New York City (Pace is in Manhattan borough and St. John's is in Queens borough), please include under education for this section.

Ssunvi ( talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Saquib

The list isn't supposed to be a comprehensive list of private universities - it's just a few of the most notable ones. Pace doesn't seem to quite come up to the same standard as the others listed. Given this is a summary and there is a main article I think the list could do with trimming more than expanding. -- SiobhanHansa 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Founded in 1906, Pace University celebrated its centennial year in 2006 and is now 102 years old. Pace is a private metropolitan university which enrolls nearly 13,500 students in bachelors, masters, and doctoral programs. Also, Pace's Lubin School of Business is professionally accredited for both business and accounting by AACSB International, an elite distinction shared by fewer than 3% of business schools in the world.

Please visit the website: www.pace.edu for more information about the university.

St. John's University is a private university founded in 1870; see www.stjohns.edy for more information about the university.

For a list of accreditation received by the university visit: http://www.pace.edu/page.cfm?doc_id=151

Based on the fact that is provided above I think it is certainly at par with the rest of the universities listed in the summary if not above most of them.

Please go through it and comment if you need further clarification.

Ssunvi ( talk) 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Saquib

You mention age and size and that it's accredited. None of these things are by themselves particularly notable given the competition, it doesn't seem to be the oldest or the largest and it's certainly not the only accredited school. Is it regularly listed as one of the best schools in the country? Is there some other way in which it's absence from the list would make most people's eyes go wide? Really if it's going to be included we should be thinking about how it beats the others on the list (which I've already said needs trimming anyway) otherwise we're just going to end up with a ridiculously long listing. Everyone's favorite school can't go on this page. -- SiobhanHansa 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that if the other schools mentioned in the list is notable then in regards to ranking and accredition, which are the key aspect on how notable the university is, pace university should definitely be in the list. It is regularly listed as one of the best schools in the country if you could take the time and see the rankings of us schools, its consistently above four of the universities listed there. And considering the ranking it has compared to the other universities mentioned in that list, it certainly made some peoples eyes go wide and that's why I am writing here. So if you think it needs trimming it should not mention atleast four of the names listed there or it can include two more words to it, in order to give the readers a complete and accurate picture. And it has nothing to do with it being my favorite univerisity, I am just pointing out the facts.

198.105.45.121 ( talk) 20:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Saquib

I think that's an argument that makes a lot of sense - why don't you present that evidence. -- SiobhanHansa 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI === http://www.bachelor-ba-master-mba-degree-program.com/mba_rankings.html please visit the website or you can look for the ranking of other schools on that list if pace university is not ranked consistently above atleast three of the names mentioned there then I am sorry for wasting your time, and if it is then please make the necessary adjustments. Thank you

76.15.139.161 ( talk) 21:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Saquib

I dont see any changes being made... anyways if you dont know about AACSB please look it up and try and get to know what it is. And go to the websites of the lesser knowned university over there you will see what i mean. Do reply if you have something to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.139.161 ( talk) 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay Pace is not so recognized, but St. John's University is not only recognized, but has the highest standards of excellence. St. John's is one of America's leading Catholic universities, recognized for its superb academic programs, diverse student life, BIG EAST excitement and New York vitality. With over 152,500 living alumni, 82 percent of whom reside in the New York region, St. John’s University has wired New York City with Alumni, some the most prominent and expert in their fields. Founded in 1870 by the Vincentian Community, St. John's is known for giving students the knowledge, skills and confidence to serve others while achieving personal and professional success. St. John's University comprises St. John's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, The School of Education, The Peter J. Tobin College, School of Law, College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, College of Professional Studies, St. John's Distance Learning. Graduates become leaders in their professions, their communities and the world.~~ Joseph R. Ercole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.6.130 ( talk) 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Schcambo: Firstly, the United Kingdom only gets one sister city, not four; listing "England" implies that "Scotland", "Northern Ireland" and "Wales" are missing out on sister cities, whereas in fact it's just that the United Kingdom gets a single sister city. Secondly, the passage you quote is in specific regard to nationalities of sportsmen and women, where in some cases they will compete internationally on behalf of the subnation rather than the sovereign state. The guidelines for non-nationality issues make no such exception. I'd be happy to leave England there if you could provide a good reason to have it there, rather than just "because I can" (which is what reasons seem to have amounted to so far). Cheers, Stannered ( talk) 23:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think placing England on the list implies Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland also have ties with NY. WP:FLAGS specifically allows the use of recognisable sub-national flags, especially those of the UK: "many editors, however, feel that the UK's subnations in particular are an exception". Yes, in many cases this is meant for sporting contexts. However, the whole sister cities/town twinning thing is specifically meant to increase cultural ties between cities, and London, culturally, is distinctly English, and marketed as such, not as part of some homogenised UK culture. Hence, the English flag. -- Schcambo ( talk) 12:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, that quote says "some editors feel", and is hardly in itself a guideline. Secondly, as I mentioned, it's not just specific to sports, but to nationality, rather than the country in which a place is. Whilst it may not imply that Wales, Scotland and NI have sister cities, it may imply that they are missing them. Last time I visited London as a tourist, virtually all the tourist souvenir merchangise was branded with Union flags, not with English flags. Google Image Search (for london pencil or london t-shirt corroborates, with far more Union flags seen than English flags). Stannered ( talk) 12:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it says "many editors feel" :). Try just searching visitlondon.com; you'll find some 15,200 results for "England", but only 1,500 results for "United Kingdom". -- Schcambo ( talk) 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither phrase makes it a policy, or even a guideline, just a widespread opinion. And given that we're comparing sizes of our penises Google hit number, why don't you try UK, which returns 21,000 results. Stannered ( talk)

Why is New York rendered in IPA with the "small j" after the N? Isn't that characteristic of British English, and neither represents the general American nor New York New Jersey pronunciations? ( Ejoty ( talk) 13:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)) Ejoty 03-22-2008

I would have said, by contrast, that it does most closely represent General American. A ( received) British pronunciation would be nʲuː jɒːk (non-rhotic), whereas a New York pronunciation would be (approximately) nu jɔk. I'm not sure I like the stated pronunciation as GA, either, as I think that should be an r-coloured vowel, rather than have the ɹ phenome. Perhaps this could use an expert opinion. Cmsg 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is a joke, it looks like its been written by the tourism promotors! The first picture is obviously one which has been taken to a studio and doctored with, making the lights brighter, making the sky look mystyical, this article is biased, as if it's been written by David Letterman! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.227.114 ( talk) 18:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree. the pic was replaced to a lower manhattan skyline, but I reverted it back to the top of the rock cropped night shot that many seemed to agree on for quite a while, since its actually what people think of when they think NYC. Dense amount of skyscrapers and the citys most notable buildings, not the incomplete lower manhattan skyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"New York City has about 4493 skyscrapers, more than any other city in the world." Under Cityscape > Architecture.

Hong Kong has more, it is cited in the Hong Kong article.

-- Onejsin ( talk) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

--It all has to do with how you define "skyscraper." My understanding is that Hong Kong has more mid-rise towers, so if you set the minimum limit low then Hong Kong would come out on top. If you set it higher (like 800 feet), NY would have more. On the other hand, if you set the bar very low (like 100 feet) I think Sao Paolo would probably be at the top. Needless to say, this has caused lots of confusion, but it would probably just be safe enough to say that each city has "among" the largest collections of skyscrapers in the world. -- Jleon ( talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

From the introduction: "literally countless?" We need to remember the meaning of the word "literally." 76.172.150.17 ( talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Emporis' method of ranking skylines uses floor counts to approximate actual heights of individual skyscrapers, but this is a dubious approximation at best. Hong Kong's many apartments, for example, have shorter floors than New York office buildings, but are allocated as many or even more points via Emporis' ranking method. Emporis' estimate should not be used to calculate the total number of skyscrapers above a certain height within a city.

I'm uncomfortable with the description of 'punk' as an American cultural movement in the introduction to this article.

While it's certainly a cultural movement that has strong roots in NYC, I think was a sufficient degree of cross-pollination with other locales that it can't be described as exclusively 'American'. May I please amend the wording of the intro, or could someone else do it? Thanks

---

Actually, I'd prefer the 'birthplace of punk' claim be attached to Seattle. Punk band The Sonics beats the movement of NYC punk by ten years or more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.102 ( talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

...uhh... or England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.127.211 ( talk) 04:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Economy section of this article refers to NYC as one of three financial "command centers" in the world, along with London and Hong Kong. The reference cited implies the third city should be Tokyo, not Hong Kong. Further, the Tokyo article identifies it as one of three "command centres" along with London and New York (no reference is cited there). In short, I think Hong Kong should probably be changed to New York, but I've not checked the cited source to be sure. Elbee23 ( talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Population Does the population numbers take into account illegal immigrants.

Introduction: "It [New York City] has been the largest city in the United States since 1790 . . ."

History Section: "By 1835, New York City had surpassed Philadelphia as the largest city in the United States."

I'm not going to edit this because I don't know which is true, but I had been under the impression that Philadelphia was the largest city until the 1830's. Raecoli ( talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

-Good catch. According to the historical population tables for each of the two cities, New York had 33,131 people in 1790 while Philly had 28,522. Assuming this to be correct, I'll change the instance in the history section. Personally I think the mention doesn't even belong in the into, as that section is aleady due for a major trimming. -- Jleon ( talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The high and low temp records are all wrong. Use this site for the official records: http://threadex.rcc-acis.org/ Famartin ( talk) 18:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the climate records for the chart. The source led to Dell Regional High School in New Jersey, not anywhere in New York City. This was probably done so that the introduction of NYC's climate could say it lies entirely in the humid subtropical zone, with the coldest month averaging 0° C. But the weather.com record for New York City shows the coldest month with an average high of 36 and a low of 23, averaging out to -1.3° C, placing it in the transition zone between humid subtropical and humid continental. I will make that change as well.

The largest immigrant groups cited in the 2000 Dept of City Planning document are incorrectly listed .See main document, order should be cited as : 1. DR 2. China, 3. Jamaica, 4. Guyana 5. MEXICO, 6. Ecuador, 7. Haiti, 8 Trin & Tob, 9 Colombia, 10 Russia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.1.100 ( talk) 15:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think there is like waaayyy too many photos on here? Ya Boi Krakerz

"Queens MAY overtake Brooklyn in population". In how long will it overtake it and not only that the Bronx MAY take over brooklyn ....they all may but what are the chances and in what amount of time will it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlushinQwnzNyc ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of the environment section: "require purification by water treatment plants.[46]and then my mama took a dump."

I don't have an account, and can't remove it because the page is semi-protected. Thanks, 70.65.146.1 ( talk) 00:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you make an account? I just wish there was a majority of users that had accounts and weren't using their IP adresses as an account. Ya Boi Krakerz

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view •  talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).-- Pharos ( talk) 02:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the World Trade center be removed from this article by now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.236.234 ( talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned to say it put the city in the ranks of those of the tallest buildings in the world, that it was one of the targets of the September 11th attacks, and that it is what the Freedom Towers are replacing. I'm not sure how removing any of those will improve the article. Louis Waweru  Talk  11:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When I made that somment, that phrasing was present tense: "is home to". In any case, consider my objection withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.202 ( talk) 04:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a typo ("thr") in the sentence "New york accent is still recognized in thr afro-americans communities where...". Please fix it. Gates531 ( talk) 09:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Where the article mentions that Gotham is the nickname of New York City, it links to an article about a small English town. Hopefully, this can be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.153.135 ( talk) 01:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the illusion that the punk subculture came up across several countries, and was not just 'born' in one city. I don't think one random website can really be seen as enough proof to say that 'this place was the birthplace of a massive global subculture'. If everything I read in one book or one website was correct, the world would be a very different place indeed. Is there more evidence for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.31.67 ( talk) 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

They're all on a particular size (200x) thus making the option you choose in the files field of personal preferences ineffective. I really think it goes against people that prefers big size or smaller size of images. For some reason people keep on making all images go against what you can choose on personal preferences. I am more than willing to change it back, but this has to be disucssed fully since I can smell objections. So does anyone else agree that most images shouldn't have a particular size so people can choose the size from personal preferences? On the helicopter article for example most images don't specify the size, and let people choose for themselves in personal preferences. I really think for a featured article you should be able to choose the size yourself. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 21:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If there will be NO objections I will remove the size tomorrow so you can choose from personal preferences. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please make the change. Your proposal is in accord with WP:IMAGES, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size and MOS:IMAGES. Station1 ( talk) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It won't take long to replace 200x| by nothing. Microsoft Word has a useful feature called replace, and I can replace all instances of 200x| with absolutely nothing. I often use it when editing my site, it's very handy. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, though I accidentally marked my edit as minor, sorry about that. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when? It is the seat of the UN of course. But it doesnt mean that New York is a base for global politics like various political capitals like Washington, Berlin, Beijing or Brussels. The UN seat is rather a representational center and rarely decision making.

Wall Street rules the planet, where have you been. Mangomon ( talk) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just a partner city, since Rome and Paris just have the other one as the sole sister city. Change immediately! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.201.59 ( talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect according to the SCI website. If you're relying on the information in -other- Wikipedia pages, they may be incorrect(!!!) Best, -- Docether ( talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What would be think about adding a section on stand-up comedy in NYC? Gchuva ( talk) 04:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

+1 on late-night culture

This would be better-suited to one of the child articles; I recommend Culture of New York City. Best, -- Docether ( talk) 14:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles for London and Paris have extremely iconic and rather aesthetically pleasing images, whereas the lead image for this article is rather bland and boring.

There are a variety of superior images, such as [1] which could be cropped to fit the image box. This image: [2] includes the iconic Brooklyn Bridge, and this image: [3] won second place as a featured picture candidate.

I know it's not a competition against the London or Paris articles, but New York City definitely deserves a much better image than the one it is currently given.

Anybody agree?

Thanks, TheSuave ( talk) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Would whoever added the sentence: "With its 24-hour subway and constant bustling of traffic and people." please complete the thought. As it stands, it is only a sentence fragment. WikiDan61 ( talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Under "Government" the following tidbit of information is provided:

"As the host of the United Nations, New York City is home to the world's largest international consular corps, comprising 122 consulates, consulates general and honorary consulate offices." The source being the State Department Diplomatic List

There are a few things wrong with this:

1. This state department list does not keep track of consulates to the United Nations; only consulates to the United States located in New York, of which there are 96. The actual list of UN consulates is at UN Heads of Missions. There should be 193, since that's the official membership of the UN.
2. What does "world's largest international consular corps" mean? Is this the number of countries represented? If so, then I think Geneva would probably have about the same number... Or is this calculated by the total number of diplomatic officers? If so, then a source is needed that says that. It's very possible that London, Paris, or Washington has a larger diplomatic corps (number of people), even if those cities don't have embassies from every country. You also have to take into consideration that Washington is the headquarters of other international organizations like the World Bank, IMF, OAS, etc. all of which have their own diplomatic officials as well.

Best, epicAdam ( talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The " New York City Commission for the United Nations, Consular Corps and Protocol" may be the source for the claim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the number of missions and consulates seems about right, but the "world's largest diplomatic corp" still sounds vague. Even though there are more consulates in New York, that doesn't necessary mean the city has the "largest diplomatic corp" (or community). The term "diplomatic corps", at least to me, means a group of people. Going by license plates, there were 6,277 issued to diplomats in Washington and 2,596 plates issued to diplomats in New York. Source: State Dept Press Release This leaves me to believe that there is probably a larger diplomatic presence in Washington than New York (or that diplomats in Washington own more than twice as many cars, which is also possible but not likely...)

And just for the record, Geneva claims to have about 35,000 diplomats (Source: Geneve Internationale), which seems like the largest diplomatic corps by far. Even if every single mission and consulate in New York had 100 diplomats assigned to it (which I guarantee they do not), NYC's diplomatic community would still be smaller than Geneva's.

The article could just use the number from the Commission's office and say "New York has the largest concentration of diplomatic offices in the world with a total of 192 missions and 108 consulates located in the city." Thoughts? - epicAdam ( talk) 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this website, the city's population now is 8.3 million. Check it out!

http://promo.realestate.yahoo.com/promo/top-10-fastest-growing-cities:-the-big-easy-picks-up-the-pace.html

-- 71.190.82.81 ( talk) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. "The Big Apple continues to be the most populous city in the nation, with 8.3 million residents, according to the Census Bureau." It's taking the 8,274,527 Census number and inexplicably rounding.-- Loodog ( talk) 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it take into accoutn illegal immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.231.153 ( talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with various images from Wikimedia Commons to try and create a possible new lead image for the article.

Considering that New York City has a variety of prominent landmarks and a widely recognisable skyline, I thought a photomontage could be quite suitable.

Of course, if anybody feels that I should incorporate alternative images from Commons, then definitely let me know.

This is just a rough version of the image. Of course, if we reach a consensus to replace the current image with the one I've created, I'd make improvements to the quality.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks, TheSuave ( talk) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks pretty good, but I would change the middle panel to perhaps pictures of Times Square, the Statue of Liberty (which you should find a better image of), and then the Unisphere Jleon mentioned. Also, try see if there's a better photo of the Brooklyn Bridge. Noah03 ( talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

File:NYC Montage 3.jpg

-This is great! I really like the idea of a montage for the introduction. I was thinking that since the Empire State and Chrysler builings are already represented in the top panel, that perhaps having the Unisphere and Grand Army Plaza (the top images of each article are good examples) in those spots might make for a better balance of the city outside Manhattan. Just an idea, but I hope we can all agree on something sooon since the current intro pic has been there for years. -- Jleon ( talk) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the montage as well but, as was mentioned above, I do think the city needs to be better represented. I'm not sure if it's suitable to use images from each Borough, but I don't think the article's main photograph should give people the impression that Manhattan is the only place in New York City. - epicAdam ( talk) 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. I would say that the Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge should stay in the montage due to their iconic worldwide status as New York City landmarks. I also think that the Manhattan panorama should remain in the montage.

However, the Unisphere representing Queens could be a valid addition, but I'm not so sure about Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn. Are there any other landmarks in Brooklyn that could be used in the image?

TheSuave ( talk) 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

-Well I guess we could say that Brooklyn is already represented in the bottom panel. Perhaps the middle row could simply be the UN Headquarters, the Statue of Liberty, and the Unisphere? We could take the top photo on the UN headquarters article and crop it to only show the Secretariat building. I might have time to make a mock-up of it tonight and I'll post it here then. -- Jleon ( talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is everybody sure that we want the Unisphere on there? I'm just not totally sure people associate it with New York. If I had to take a guess, I believe that most people would think that it's the sphere at Universal Studios Hollywood (no joke). - epicAdam ( talk) 19:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. It does indeed look like the Universal Studios sphere. Maybe images of Manhattan are the best way to go, as the image that is projected of New York City around the world is usually of Manhattan and I suppose the Brooklyn Bridge does represent Brooklyn.

So, I think we all agree on the Manhattan panorama, Brooklyn Bridge, and Statue of Liberty images staying in the montage. What could be good alternatives to the Empire State Building and Chryler Building images?

TheSuave ( talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Times Square and the United Nations? Noah03 ( talk) 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

--OK, I added my own two draft montages. What does everyone think? -- Jleon ( talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Love the second one (besides the Unisphere that I think people will confuse with Universal Studios). As for the third one... well, the skylines of the other boroughs are a bit too nondescript for me; I'm not sure that people unfamiliar with the city would know what they're looking at. I'd rather stick with iconic NYC pictures for the infobox like the ones in option 2. - epicAdam ( talk) 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I second that. I think the second one is fantastic. As long as there is a link to the Unisphere page on the image description then I don't think there should be too much confusion with the sphere at Universal Studios.

I think the second one is brilliant. Great work Jleon!

TheSuave ( talk) 23:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

-Thanks. I fixed up the borders to the second one, and I think its a bit improved now. I guess that's the one we can use (at least for now) if no one objects to it. -- Jleon ( talk) 23:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's not too late to offer my opinion. I like the top one best. It gives an overview of New York City as a city, I don't like the bottom one though, as it's just buildings and the Statue of Liberty. But out of curiosity what is that metal globe in the middle one? I'm not a citizen of New York City, and really don't recognize it. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still open to discussion about altering what's in the panels. The Unisphere is in Queens and was built for the 1964 World's Fair. It sits in Flushing-Meadows Park, which served as temporary headquarters for the UN while the current one was under construction, so I think it reminds people of the UN being in New York. It's a bit outside the tourist circuit, but its still an iconic image to people in the city. -- Jleon ( talk) 01:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I posted this before in the wrong section. If you want something emblematic of the outer boroughs, maybe you should try an image of the Staten Island Ferry. It's the thing, along with the Verrazanno Bridge, that most people think of when you mention Staten Island. -- GhostStalker( Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1964 World's Fair? Why is that picture of the globe in there? It doesn't look anything like like that anymore either, in fact Flushing Meadow Park is hardly even a destination. Also, that huge black picture (cityscape) looks like something from the post apocalyptic "The Death of Batman". Mangomon ( talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The old picture is better

I think the old single picture is much better. It is a very good picture of New York and it is able to be enlarged when clicked. There are not many city articles that use this type of montage. -- Andrew from NC ( talk) 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I completely disagree. NYC has so many iconic landmarks, and the old image was a rather standard image of Manhattan's skyline. This image includes the Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of Liberty, Times Square and the Unisphere, on top of a Manhattan panorama. It's much more representative of New York City. London's article also has a montage displaying the city's various landmarks.

It's definitely a better type of image for this article.

TheSuave ( talk) 01:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the montage is at a high resolution so you can still enlarge it to get a nice view of all five photos. -- Jleon ( talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But can someone please spin Lady Liberty around the right way? Station1 ( talk) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll fix it soon. -- Jleon ( talk) 12:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok it's finally fixed, sorry about the delay. -- Jleon ( talk) 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps replace the globe with a pic of the UN headquarters? Something that keeps the idea of "global city". Or the Chrysler building maybe, something that's quintessentially NYC? And I think a nighttime pic of Times Square would be better. -- Joowwww ( talk) 17:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All good options, but I think the main point of doing the montage was so that more of the city is represented as opposed to just Manhattan. If you can think of other landmarks in the other boroughs that may be more appropriate, please make a suggestion. Even better, if you have a link to a free high-res photograph that you think would be a good replacement that would be handy to have. Best, epicAdam ( talk) 17:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I had actually tried out different combinations that included the UN, however all of the photos of it are either too grey, blurry, or not at good angles. If you can find a bright sunny picture of it that is nicely framed I think it would be feasible, but I still think the other boros should be well represented. As for the night time pic, I think any night shots are going to look completely indiscernible when they are at the scale of montage panel. -- Jleon ( talk) 17:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just shamelessly scoured Flickr and uploaded a bunch of CC images of a sunny UN building at different angles (I wasn't sure which angle you thought was dodgy), take a look at this category again if you already had. I think one of them has some flare issues but it's probably nothing the graphics lab can't sort out. You are right to say other boroughs should be represented, but as an outsider I can't think of a non-Manhattan landmark that is thought of as quintessentially New York. -- Joowwww ( talk) 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well I think the best UN pictures are those that show both the Secretariat building and the general assembly building, since the Secretariat by itself is probably not that recongizable to most. Putting this is the center panel of the mantage doesn't really look as nice as the semetrical and round Unisphere, and it also makes the image very Manhattan-centric. Overall it seems there is not much support for changing the current picture, so I think I'll leave it alone for now. -- Jleon ( talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're still looking for a picture to insert into the montage, maybe one of the Staten Island Ferry would work. It is, along with the Verrazanno Bridge, probably the most recognizable images of Staten Island. Quite a few people forget about Staten Island when considering New York City... -- GhostStalker( Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about the Staten Island Ferry. Apart from those who've been to New York, I imagine a lot of people would just see an orange ferry without knowing what the association with New York is. The Suave 15:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like the newest one the best. It gives obvious look at how New York City is unique from other cities in the world. The older one had a lot of buildings, now a photo with a lot of buildings doesn't tell you right away what city it really is, since most buildings on photos like that are just streets, and not so well known. But the one we have now fits best, it has time square, the liberty statue and the Brooklyn bridge, that shows how NYC is unique from other cities. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New version

• Since numerous people have now expressed confusion over the Unisphere picture and others have a stated a desire to see the UN Headquarters in the intro montage, I created a new possible version of the lead image. Do people prefer this or the old version better? -- Jleon ( talk) 18:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the photos, but I do think it gets to be too Manhattan-centric. The entire point of the unisphere was that it was in Queens, but it did remind me of the Universal Studios globe... I wish there were some more "iconic" buildings in the other Burroughs, since this article is technically about the city as a whole. - epicAdam^{( talk)} 19:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that it's a good image. Unfortunately it is Manhattan-centric, but I guess that Manhattan is the globally projected image of New York City, so I think it's ok. The Suave 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• To make up for the relatively Manhattan-centric lead image, I've created a small gallery of the other 4 boros in the "Cityscape" section. If people feel the article is now bordering on image overload, perhaps we could move that section down to the bottom. -- Jleon ( talk) 19:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence of fourth paragraph reads, "It is also the home of Broadway theater, which exists in an area often referred to as The Main Stem, The Great White Way or The Realto [emphasis added]." Why "Realto" and not " Rialto"? The New York Times used "Rialto" to refer to Broadway theater as recently as December 2007 (Isherwood, " Not All News Was on the Rialto"). The most recent use of "Realto" that I can find is from 1971 (Funke, " By Arthur Miller; News of the Realto"). Does anybody know the origin of this slang term for Broadway? Any objections to changing this to "Rialto" per The New York Times?-- RobDport ( talk) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So the phrase must come from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Act III, Sc i, line 1: "SALANIO: Now, what news on the Rialto?" My Riverside Shakespeare spells it "Rialto." So let's spell it "Rialto"!-- RobDport ( talk) 22:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The line at the top says "Located on one of the world's natural harbors" seems like an awkward sentence, is their a missing word there? Why not just say its located "on a natural harbor"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.236.66 ( talk) 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Station1 ( talk) 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at Talk:New York#Hi there I have a proposition as to whether to move New York City to New York (which currently is the article about New York State), with a disambig hatnote redirect New York to New York City, or to change New York to a simple disambigation page. Any furthur input would be welcome.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: No one is proposing a move of "New York City". The question is what to do with "New York". Input still welcome.-- Loodog ( talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I stand corrected. The discussion concerns whether to redirect New York to New York City or to make it a disambiguation page.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, presumably, leave as is which is the current location of the state of New York.-- Loodog ( talk) 01:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we arguing about what we're arguing about now? We'll never reach consensus now! Just kidding. I think that the consensus so far is that there should be a change, but not what that change should be.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose move placed on WP:RM without a {{ move}} on this page, to rename this page as New York. 70.51.9.81 ( talk) 04:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming New York City to New York

Normally, the discussion would be here, but because the issue is so entwined with, and dependent upon, the move from New York to New York State, these discussions are being consolidated at Talk:New York#Requested move.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

...then I think it will be time for a new discussion, one related to improving the header at the top of this page that says:

"It has been decided that New York City should remain at that name and not at "New York, New York".

I would like to know if anyone can discuss adding "...or "New York"". Georgia guy ( talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty uncontroversial. It should also include a link to wherever the move discussion gets archived to.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Done-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's wrong in my opinion. Sure, New York is often to refer to the city, but it's more official name of the state. New York City is New York City, not just New York. Changing New York into redirecting to this page would be wrong. I also oppose redirecting New York to the dab page since it's most officially used to refer to the U.S. State. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Better to volunteer your thoughts where the relevant discussion is taking place.-- Loodog ( talk) 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This page implies that the Statue of Liberty is IN New York. Since it is most closely associated with New York, I am not questioning its presence in this article, but perhaps it should mention that it is in New Jersey and not in New York. Ciaboo ( talk) 20:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It's on Liberty Island, which is part of New York. Read the article. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "NYC climate" :
  • {{cite web |title=The Climate of New York |publisher=New York State Climate Office |url=http://nysc.eas.cornell.edu/climate_of_ny.html |accessdate=2007-03-27}}
  • {{cite web |title=Weatherbase |publisher=New York State Climate Office |url=http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=330527&refer==&units=metric |accessdate=2007-03-27}}

DumZiBoT ( talk) 15:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph mentions that New York was purchased for 60 Guilders in 1626. Can anyone give an estimate of the value of 60 1626 Guilders in todays terms, maybe in US dollars? Far Canal ( talk) 04:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the currency conversion. 60 guilders in 1626 would have the same purchasing power as about €680 in 2006, approximately $1000. Here, I don't think it hurts to round since the original conversion is going to be an estimate anyway. Best, epicAdam ( talk) 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks Far Canal ( talk) 05:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a back and forth on whether or not New York City is within the Humid subtropical climate zone or the Humid continental climate zone. From what I've read on the subject, most of the Eastern Seaboard north of Pennsylvania is in the continental zone, while Maryland southward is in the subtropical zone. However, the zones are separated out largely by their freeze line isotherm. Due to NYC's proximity to the water and Urban heat island effect, its very possible that the city itself would technically be in the subtropical zone, while the rest of the New York state would be in the continental zone. It's generally understood that NYC sits right on the cusp of the two zones, and I'm not sure there is a good way of indicating this in the article without going into far too much detail. Any thoughts/suggestions? Best, epicAdam ( talk) 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a reliable, third-party, published source that specifically says NYC is in one zone or the other, that is what should appear in the article along with a citation. If two equally reliable sources differ, both can be mentioned. If there is no such citable source, any speculation, interpretation or synthesis of other sources is original research and should not appear in the article at all. Station1 ( talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated has the most detailed information, and includes the data files for use in ArcGIS. You can see it on the map, but just to make sure, you can also look up NYC's coordinates in the Data provided and find that the city definitely classified Cfa, indicating a Humid subtropical climate. Best, epicAdam ( talk) 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Look on Koppen climate classification. You'll see that if the coldest month is -3C on average, it's on the border between humid continental dfa and humid subtropical cfa. Some people use 0C but Koppen used -3C, and so do I. Press olive, win oil ( talk) 21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I think that the source is consistent with that. Is it no good? Best, epicAdam ( talk) 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's good. It's third party/no orig. research. It's published. It's trusted by Wikimedia and it's reliable because it's third-party and published. According to the Koppen scheme (the most popular), NYC is cfa. So are Bergen and Passaic counties, Southern Rockland and Westchester counties, and Long Island. So is central Jersey and SW Connecticut. Dfa (Humid continental) prevails north and west of these locations. That's the NYC metropolitan area. Press olive, win oil ( talk) 22:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is funny. Subtropical climate, but no subtropical plants can be grown in NYC. NYC has humid continental climate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.189.72.227 ( talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Koppen climate classification scheme doesn't determine what type of plants can be grown in a particular area; that is what the plant hardiness zone is set up to determine. - epicAdam ( talk) 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Humid continental climate explicitly states in dividing continental from subtropical, "The Koppen climate classification, the most popular climate classification, uses -3°C [isotherm lines] (26.6°F)." Since it also puts NYC, Boston, and Providence between the -3°C and 0°C isotherms, they are all south of the -3 Koppen line, i.e. Humid subtropical climate.-- Loodog ( talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some subtropical plants, such as the needle palm can grow in NYC and all of New Jersey as well, except a tiny speck in the northwest. They can also grow in extreme southern New England. Look at the adaptable map. They are indeed humid subtropical. Press olive, win oil ( talk) 12:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This rationale is the same as saying "NYC's climate is similar to that of the northern boreal forest because Balsam Fir can grow there", or saying that "NYC's climate is similar to a desert because prickly pear cactus can grow there". Just because a palm can survive there doesn't mean its a subtropical climate. Famartin ( talk) 02:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that the Koppen scheme is the most popular and it uses -3C to divide humid continental from humid subtropical. My source was the Koppen climate classification article, saying -3C was the line. In a few minutes, I'll have a link up saying the Koppen scheme is the most popular. Press olive, win oil ( talk) 12:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The climate classification article says the Koppen scheme is probably the most popular. I didn't write that. Press olive, win oil ( talk) 12:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC) For weeks, no one has objected to this. The evidence suggests it. NYC and all of its surrounding counties (except for the northern part of New York State's Westchester county) is humid subtropical Cfa. Press olive, win oil ( talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some debate over whether the proper dividing line between Dfa and Cfa should be the 0° C mesotherm or the -3° C mesotherm. Many international sources claim that the -3° C (persistent snow line) is the proper dividing line. However, most climatologists in the United States use the 0° C (freeze line) mesotherm as the dividing line. Obviously, the compromise here is that cities that are above the 0° C line but below the -3° C line are in the transition zone between Cfa and Dfa. Whoever created the last version of the climate chart for New York City included inaccurate information. The link for the temperatures shown was for Dell Regional school in NJ, not anywhere in NYC. Dell Regional has the coldest month averaging 0° C. I fixed it and used the ACTUAL temperatures for the weather.com station in NYC, and the coldest month has an average high of 36 and the low was 23, averaging out to -1.3° C. It seems as if someone was manipulating the temperature information for this article so that they could include NYC exclusively in Cfa when it clearly is not. Strongbad1982 ( talk) 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have zero knowledge of (let alone any expertise in) the subject of this whole contentious section (one of the most debated and altered in the whole article), but as a complete layman, I have noticed that the table refers to Central Park (Manhattan), so I'd think most readers would assume that any micro-climatological differences would refer to Central Park, or at least Manhattan. —— Shakescene ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between the date when New York became more populous than London. The History section of the New York article puts it at 1948 while the demographics section of the London article puts it at 1925. Which one is it? I've created a similar section on the London talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliwalla ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

London is correct according to the sources provided at List of largest cities throughout history. So unless anybody has sources that say differently, the information should be changed on the NYC article to 1925, and both should probably be cited. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. - epicAdam ( talk) 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the London talk page. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times archive provides some interesting and confusing details. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B10FA3D5F157A93C5A9178CD85F458385F9 "London Is Still the World's Largest City; Its 8,202,818 Tops New York by 1,220,891"] dated July 7, 1931 puts London clearly ahead, while http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F10F9395F177A93C2AB178BD95F458385F9 "New York Now Exceeds London in Population Both in Central City and Metropolitan Area"], dated October 20, 1931, puts New York ahead on all counts, 10,901,424 vs. 8,202,818 for the metropolitan areas; 9,859,873 vs. 8,912,017 for the 20 mile radius; and 6,930,446 vs. 4,396,821 for the city proper vs. London County. Other sources in The New York Times show the lead changing at various other times. Alansohn ( talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We're also having an interesting discussion about the census data being totally off as well over on the London page. I really wish Aliwalla had kept this discussion in one place. - epicAdam ( talk) 20:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's say no more comments here and continue on the London talk page. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The way this is stated is incorrect/misleading: "New York City became the most populous urbanized area in the world in early 1920's, overtaking London, and surpassed the 10 million mark in early 1930's becoming the first megacity in human history.[29]" As the latest census puts the population of NYC at 8,214,426 people, it is very misleading to say that New York City surpasses a population of 10,000,000. It is important to clarify that this is referring to the major metropolitan area, including areas outside of NYC. Also, the reference 29 does not mention the term "megacity," so this is mis-cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyKH ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a city which is like New York in terms of ethnic diversity (although I know 'ethnic diversity' is an impossible thing to measure, if it even has a real definition) - Matthew238 ( talk) 10:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• You may want to check out List of foreign born per city, although keep in mind that this does not represent the variety of places of origin found in many cities. For instance, San Diego may have a very high level of foreign born citizens, but most of them are from one country (in that case, Mexico), wherease cities like New York, London, or Toronto have foreign born populations from a larger number of different countries. -- Jleon ( talk) 13:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is having a poorly colorized photo from 1900 really necessary? The person who did it did such a bad job that they didn't even bother with the buildings in the distant background, which are still black and white. I feel that images should be preserved in the format they were originally taken in. Davez621 ( talk) 15:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that pic is a Wikipedia: Featured Picture-- Loodog ( talk) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a photochrom print, produced by printing a black-and-white photo and a set of colored lithographic plates on the same medium. So, even though the photo was taken on black-and-white film, the colors in the print are those created by the photo shop back in 1900. -- Docether ( talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is impossible. "Unique" is an absolute; you can't be "fairly unique" or "a bit unique" or "largely unique". If it's actually unique, then the "largely" is unnecessary. If it's simply extremely unusual, then use a phrase like that. I suppose "almost unique" would be okay, but "largely unique" is not. 86.136.250.154 ( talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

unique.-- Loodog ( talk) 17:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

-I don't see what the problem is. It's perfectly good english to have an adverb before "unique" just like it is for any other adjective. What makes you think it must be an absolute quality? -- Jleon ( talk) 23:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary.". He's one of thes commentators.-- Loodog ( talk) 00:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• That same passage continues to state: "In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3." So long as the word is used here to mean "distinctive" or "unusual" (uses 2B and 3), then it seems to be good english. -- Jleon ( talk) 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unique is still equivocal and the wording should be changed. That NYC has 24 transit is not one of a kind in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.49.152 ( talk) 18:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

England isn't the county, district, state or region for London. Just suggesting that it should probably say either "Greater London" or "City of London" for the region of London. Dav matt ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the same thought crossed my mind yesterday; and then I thought that, at the moment, London doesn't really have a greater region or county that encloses her. If the sisterhood were with the City of London (the golden square mile), equivalent to Manhattan (really to Wall Street or Downtown Manhattan's Community Board), then Greater London (whose Mayor changed in last May's elections from Ken Livingstone to Boris Johnson) would be the intermediate entity. But the sisterhood is with the whole Greater London Authority (the City plus 32 outlying boroughs). —— See London#Sister_cities and List_of_twin_towns_in_the_United_Kingdom#London.

So England is really the closest you can get to an intermediate area between Greater London and the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. The anomaly is that, just as New York boroughs have Presidents but no independent governments, England (unlike Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland) is such a huge fraction of the UK that she has no separate governing authority short of the UK Parliament at Westminster.

The Liberal Democrats have proposed from time to time the creation of English regional authorities equivalent to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly, but so far as I know, that idea has yet to see any concrete result parallel to French regions or Spanish provinces (e.g. Ile-de-France or Comunidad de Madrid). —— Shakescene ( talk) 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Greater London, rather than the City of London is the sister city for Greater New York, so I indicated that in the chart. I deleted the whole column for regions and counties because it just wasn't useful, relevant, informative or interesting for this particular set of cities (Cairo is in the Cairo Governate, Beijing in Beijing, Tokyo in the Tokyo prefecture, etc.) [With other sets of cities, it could be quite interesting to compare the cities and corresponding regions for (for example) Barcelona (Catalonia), Vancouver (British Columbia), Washington (D.C.), Melbourne (South Australia), etc.] I also added two sentences about most being capitals (which NYC is not) and few being seaports (which NYC is). —— Shakescene ( talk) 10:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

London should be placed in just England (rather than including United Kingdom). Decisions on twinning have nothing to do with the Union and are decided on a city-by-city or national level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.91.42.13 ( talk) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From what others have said about this, although I don't know directly for a fact and could well be wrong, Sister Cities International uses sovereignty or diplomatic status (as in ambassadors or U.N. membership) as a criterion in the sense that New York City can't be simultaneously twinned with London and another British city like Cardiff, Edinburgh or Londonderry. Also Wikipedia's flag policy is unfavourable to overuse of subnational flags where national ones can be used (e.g. Olympics and ice-skating vs international Association or Rugby football).

I live in New England but still have British citizenship, and was born in London as were both my parents but I have little English blood; my mother identifies with her Scottish ancestry; so I have no strong ideological bias in this. I put in both the English flag (St George's Cross) and Union Jack, because both justly apply in my opinion, it saves having to add to the regional footnote, and it avoids (honourably if a little clumsily) passionate debates about nationality. —— Shakescene ( talk) 06:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think just the Union Jack should be used; it's the flag of the actual country. England just isn't a sovereign state. Best, epicAdam^{( talk)} 19:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What's ironic is that the editors who have been most eager to remove St. George's Cross have been passionate Scottish nationalists, who one might think would be most eager to establish that Scotland, England and Wales are distinct countries. Some editors think that Sister Cities uses political sovereignty (UK) as its criterion (which would stop New York from twinning with a Scottish or Welsh city), and delete St George's Cross; while others think of England, Scotland and Wales as qualifying countries (as in the Five/Six Nations rugby tournament or international soccer), and delete the Union Jack. I don't know the definitive answer to this off-hand. An argument against listing England as well as the UK might be that it would also argue for adding Palestine as a country of which Jerusalem is the capital (according to Palestinians but not Israelis). An argument for including both UK and English flags is that it simplifies the whole business of listing regions (which is silly for most capitals which sit within identically-named regions/districts/governorates/prefectures that mean nothing to outsiders). It's just a narrow balance of considerations. Best holiday wishes. —— Shakescene ( talk) 03:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you this: Neither England, nor Scotland, nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland have seats at the UN, nor do they have embassies abroad, nor can they enter into treaties with other sovereign states. So whatever you call England, be it a nation or a country, it's still not a sovereign entity (nor is Palestine, for that matter). All the other countries listed are first-order sovereign states, and I think the listing for London should follow the same. It really doesn't matter what Sister Cities International has to say as they do not organize or oversee bi-municipal relations; they act more of a directory. Happy Holidays! Best, epicAdam^{( talk)} 04:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Many people incorrectly call England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Countries, however this is incorrect. None Claim to be independent, none are sovereign and only two were former countries (OK they may have FIFA membership and autonomy, but this does not make them a country or even a de facto country). They may have flags and national anthems ect, but so do US sates and many other autonomies. The United Kingdom is the country, not England. Many people in Scotland and Wales are ethnic English, England is not a country, English is not a nationality, the Nationality is British. If we were to include England next to London, we must include US States, Russian Subjects, German States, Chinese Provinces, Canadian States/ Territories, Australia States, Mexican States, Indian States ect on all other articles next to their regional capitals and this just becomes confusing. It also promotes regional nationalism and I believe promoting regional nationalism is POV. Also, may people outside the UK have trouble understanding the difference between England and the UK (including Americans), not to mention the understanding of Scotland, Wales and NI. Ijanderson ( talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Country" is what most people mean by it and doesn't always mean a sovereign nation-state, unless that's understood. That's certainly a secondary meaning of "country", but not the only one. "Many people" (meaning almost everyone in Great Britain and the United Kingdom since before their creation) have not been using the word "incorrectly" just because one has a stricter definition of "country", and takes an extreme anti-nationalist, integrationist position. See all the contrasting examples at Countries of the United Kingdom.

I've always, over half a century, thought of Scotland, Wales (Pays de Galles in French) and England as countries, and it's very hard to see what else anyone would call them ("lands"?) Although Ulster nationalists would disagree, I think of Ireland as a country governed by two different nations. The fact that almost everyone, including the British Embassy to Washington (see Constituent countries#United Kingdom) thinks of these as (currently) non-sovereign countries (or if you prefer nations) is today almost a unique situation, although I can also think of Greenland as a country that is not a nation-state. (There are certainly many people, whether they favor independent nationhood, limited autonomy or complete Jacobin integration who would also, for example, consider Catalonia, the Basque Country and Brittany to be countries.)

I could replace "country" in the title bar with some other word, but that raises exactly the problem about subnational regions that are not really countries, although that just doesn't happen to be an issue I can see with any of the territories surrounding any of New York's other Sister Cities (Peking, Tokyo, Cairo, Jo'burg, Santo Domingo, Rome, Madrid or Budapest) with the possible exception of Jerusalem (where East Jerusalem is considered to be part of Palestine by Palestinians but not by Israelis). —— Shakescene ( talk) 06:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, we are not going to decide the exact meaning of a word on Wikipedia. However, what we can agree on is that there is currently a consensus on the issue. That consensus, as it stands in all city articles, is to list sister cities by the name of the city, followed by the name of the sovereign state. Specifically in the case of London, there is an additional consensus to use the phrase "London, United Kingdom" when describing the city. A quick check through the city's other sister cities confirms that they all use that phrasing and the Union Jack only. If you believe that consensus should be changed, then you would need to use this discussion space to try and achieve that consensus. Thus far, it appears that no new consensus has emerged. Should you wish to do so, it is advisable that you try other consensus-building measures to try and achieve a change. However, until a new consensus emerges, it is advisable that the city list be left as is for the time being. Happy New Year. Best always, epicAdam^{( talk)} 07:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the term country may be used to describe England, it should not be placed in a list of sovereign states to avoid confusion. The change made by Ijanderson977 is the correct one. London is a city in the United Kingdom, it is also its capital. This is an undisputed fact and i dont think you should make a major change to the table simply because of this UK dispute. Although i would of thought linking to London rather than Greater London which is just about the administrative division more appropriate. BritishWatcher ( talk) 10:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) I looked it up (see discussion above) and it is Greater London that is referred to, rather the City of London (which would otherwise not be clear, although stylistically simple "London" would be nicer). The question that arose when the table did list "Tokyo prefecture", etc., was whether the intermediate region/district/... should be England or Greater London (or nothing).

(2) I've never in speech or writing referred my birthplace as "London, UK" or "London, United Kingdom". That's just weird. I might have said London, GB or London, Great Britain, once or twice for clarity, but London, England (like "Edinburgh, Scotland" or "Cardiff, Wales", rather than "Edinburgh, United Kingdom", "Cardiff, UK", or "Glasgow, GB") is the only way I think of or refer to the city.

(3) The table had both flags until recently, although sometimes someone would try to delete one of the flags. What I did when I deleted the regional column is what used to be called "British pragmatism" (or for that matter English pragmatism, American pragmatism or New England pragmatism) to resolve an issue that would otherwise have people switching flags every few months according to their patriotic or ideological bent. I wouldn't have done that had I thought there was no valid case for considering London an English city or a British city; they're both valid views. Pragmatism stands or falls according to its results, and if there really is a strong consensus (which I can foresee, although I don't see it yet) for just the Union Jack (or St George's Cross), then that's what should prevail. I haven't yet reinserted a second flag.

(4) [Come to think of it, a valid case could be made for having a single Union Jack next to "Great Britain" (a term with which Americans are more familiar). After all, no one denies that London is city in Great Britain. See Talk:War of 1812#not UK.]

(5) If anyone can determine whether political sovereignty was the decisive criterion in choosing a sister city (thus precluding the theoretical future addition of Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Cardiff) — as opposed to, say, the looser athletic criteria that sometimes admit national teams from Puerto Rico, Scotland, Wales, Palestine and no doubt Greenland, but not from the Punjab, Catalonia or Quebec — that would in my opinion provide the definitive answer.

(6) Most of the Sister Cities are national capitals, but that's irrelevant. Neither New York nor Johannesburg is a national capital, while almost no country outside Israel recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

(7) We should all remember that, while national sentiments may be involved, this is a relatively small issue, one small icon (or pair of icons) in a very secondary section right at the end of a long article. Have a happy new year (or Hogmanay) —— Shakescene ( talk) 19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is all of the things in that table are sovereign states so its wrong to include England in such a list. There is a table on the greater london page which has a column for region / state etc for their sister cities. Thats where "England" would belong. There are plenty of articles on wiki where it says London United Kingdom in similar boxes.

On the issue of the City of London that is a different thing to London (which includes inforrmation about Greater London which is a regional subdivision.) London would still be the correct article to link to rather than Greater London which is just about the political region. BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

When you say that the table had two flags "until recently", you mean to say since September when St. George's Cross was added. "Recent" is relative, as prior to September, only the Union Jack was included. The reason given for adding the flag of England was that it avoids nationalist edit wars from reverting between one flag or the other; however, looking through the article's history, I do not see that having ever been a problem. It appears to me that the English flag was added to solve a problem that didn't exist. However, with the inclusion of the English flag, we now appear to have the exact reverse problem with a number of editors now removing it; creating a content dispute that didn't exist prior to the flag's addition. So while, yes, the issue is small in comparison to the greater article, the flag's addition certainly seems to have caused more problems than it purported to solve. Best, epicAdam^{( talk)} 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what you think of the table used here Greater London#Twinning but that would resolve this problem of the ENgland or UK as both can be mentioned. It would also mean the other regions mentioned in notes under the table currently on this article wouldnt be needed either. Just a suggestion, is up to editors of this page to decice. Im sorry internal UK disputes have spread to other places :\ BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

PRIZES Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!-- Pharos ( talk) 00:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm incredulous at not finding a word in the entire article about the Federal "bailout" of New York City. For those who edit "New York City" have a look at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947546,00.html As I'm neither a New Yorker, nor a usual contributor to Wiki, I'll leave it in the Wiki New York editors' hands. 69.233.9.198 ( talk) 23:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a news ticker. Besides, the bailout was for the US economy not NYC's economy. -- Joowwww ( talk) 11:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The link is actually to a story about the 1975 Federal bailout of the city. It's true that there's no mention of this in the "History" section, although there is discussion of it within History_of_New_York_City_(1946-1977). Perhaps I'll add a sentence or two about it soon if no one else does. -- Jleon ( talk) 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I came here specifically to find out more about the city going broke in the seventies, and having to cut the power to the city as a result (there were apparently many 'brown outs' during this period?). Also the 'I love NY' campaign apparently came out of this time, as the City wanted to encourage people to feel better about it? Would be good to have a lot more about this period here. 82.44.88.178 ( talk) 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The city of Chicago should have a link where referenced under the "Parks" section. The city's name is in regular type; there should be a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 ( talk) 20:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 
Niikhk (
talk) 13:33, September 30, 2008 (UTC)

Anyone living in NY able to upload a recent picture of it (for the article), now that it has reached 10 trillion and has an extra "one" on it? Epson291 ( talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Was anyone able to provide a picture of the clock? If you're still in need, I can try to take one for you. -- Shalinkreintz ( talk) 23:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008 This box: view •  talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia ♥ Art bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.-- Pharos ( talk) 21:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Montage NYC.JPG

• N.B. this image was deleted from the general Infobox following a February 19, 2009, files for deletion discussion on the general thesis that since user:Ian Fortuno had violated copyright on at least one upload, none of his contributions could be trusted. This now leaves us with the question of what image, if any, should replace it. —— Shakescene ( talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm actually a fan of New York City, and I've been a contributor of many articles related with the city. I decided to change the montage made by Jleon, with a more impressive Manhattan skyline. I think its better to have this. Hope you'll like it. --Ian Fortuno (talk) 19:46, 08 November 2008

• Looks good to me. The night time pic is very nice for the intro, while the original helps better show the extent of the urban area if people choose to enlarge it. I think a photo of Midtown from across the East River would be the best possible addition to the montage, but there isn't a good one currently available on wiki commons. -- Jleon ( talk) 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone, whose account has already been deactivated, had added a revised version of the montage that included Yankees Stadium and Madison Square Garden. I reverted back to Ian Fortuno's montage. Every city has stadiums, so I don't think they are notable enough for the intro image. Also, the revised version did not include proper copyright information for the two new images. -- Jleon ( talk) 18:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) The caption needs to be adjusted to fit the contents.

(2) See Talk:Manhattan#Photo Wars here and in New York City article, a section I started which has not yet received any responses. Staleness is not something to be sought, and freshness is a virtue, but the photos keep getting changed and reverted, without any noticeable cause, every month or so.

(3) While you don't have to put in either the new or old Yankee or Shea/Citi Stadiums, every picture in this montage has a connection to Manhattan and only the Brooklyn Bridge has a connection to the outer boroughs. Perhaps a shot of the Bronx Zoo, New York Botanical Gardens or another Bronx park (in the absence of a shot of Central Park), and something like JFK airport from Queens would show that the topic is New York City and not just Manhattan, which has her own extensive page. Wikicommons has an ample selection of pictures of parks and beaches in every borough. (By the way, I'm not a New Yorker, and have no allegiance to any one part of it, although I've spent months editing The Bronx.) Best wishes for the new year. —— Shakescene ( talk) 19:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well if you look back, you'll see that this issue has been discussed at length a few times in the recent past. The problem is that pictures of the outer boroughs are just not recognizable to most readers. The original montage that I made included the Unisphere, but then several commentators expressed confusion over it. Then I included a picture gallery of the other boroughs within the "Cityscape" section, and it was quickly removed for being too cluttered. Lastly, the Statue of Liberty is not in Manhattan, and I think the current montage strikes a good balance at representing the city's most important landmarks, albeit at the expense of being slightly Manhattan-centric. -- Jleon ( talk) 02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to have MiszaBot automatically archive this talk page after 90 days or so? -- Joowwww ( talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you were to do that, I'd suggest that five or six months may be more realistic; some of the discussions from last July and August are still relevant. —— Shakescene ( talk) 21:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely think that auto archive would be a good idea. MiszaBot has settings so that it only archives non-active threads to clean up this page which is currently very long. While discussions may still be relevant after several months or years, that's why the archives exist. There's nothing stopping someone from restarting conversation on an archived topic. Best, epicAdam^{( talk)} 20:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The importance and centrality of NYC in the history of the US film industry is IMO understated as currently written ( New_york_city#Entertainment_and_performing_arts). Before being replaced by Los Angeles, NYC was the first center of the American film industry--many of the first studios were founded in the NY area, and the careers of many important early figures were launched in NYC. The citation of Manhatta is also curious as it is neither especially notable in the given context (avant-garde art film history, yes, but history of the US film industry, no) nor the first film produced in NYC by several decades.

This only a small part of one small section of the article, but it could be improved. -- Threephi ( talk) 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I've restored an image currently in the article and I think you should give the new version a try in the article. It's: Image:NewYorkCityManhattanRockefellerCenter.jpg Kind regards, Massimo -- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 20:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan should be at the top of the page as a see also. I doubt any one is going to Tottenville, Staten Island (although part of nyc) and saying they're going to New York City. New York City almost always means the island of Manhattan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.223.37 ( talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is NYC really called the city that never sleeps because of the 24-hour subway? It sounds convienent but it would be nice to see a reference. Otherwise the comment should perhaps be removed. Ranever ( talk) 03:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence definitely needs to be reworked. I think the fact that the NYC is called the "City that Never Sleeps" is pretty well established and probably doesn't need to be directly cited, but the fact that NYC has a 24-hour subway has nothing to do with the nickname. Best, epicAdam^{( talk)} 03:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sister Cities are designated by a relatively unknown private organization ( Sister Cities International) that bears little influence or importance to the city (or really, to anything). I feel this information takes up too much space for the little value it adds to this article about the city of New York. Is it Wikipedia policy to have sister cities on pages for major cities? I don't think this is the kind of information people who come to this page are looking for. Ranever ( talk) 16:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, sister cities are not designated by Sister Cities International (SSI); the arrangements are created by the cities themselves, at times facilitated by private organizations such as Sister Cities International. Indeed, sister city arrangements have been around long before the creation of SSI in 2001. Most cities provide their own detailed information about their relationships such as this site from the City of New York [4]. However, more to the point, the sister cities listing is included because which cities are linked signifies special political and economic arrangements. The listing also matches cities which may be similar in some manner. For example, the cities that are linked with New York are also themselves world-class cities. It is for all these reasons that the WP:USCITY guideline includes Sister Cities as a recommended section. I think it would be a mistake to remove this section from the New York City article when it is included in all other city articles. Best, epicAdam^{( talk)} 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I did prune and simplify the original table (see history), and added a couple of comparative comments to make it more interesting, although I suppose it could be reduced to a couple of sentences. Sister Cities (or "twinning" in British colloquial usage) is considered important in many places. For example, while Berkeley, California paid some interest to her sister city of Sakai, Japan, the people of Sakai, a factory town as Berkeley once was, were quite enthusiastic about the relationship. And for whatever little it's worth, I'm at least moderately interested in the cities with with New York has (and has not) twinned. —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shakescene. I don't think there's any need to further reduce or prune the text; in fact, the text gives the table meaning. I say keep it. Best, epicAdam^{( talk)} 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just don't see how Tokyo, Cairo, and Johannesburg (just taking a few) are more related to New York than cities like Paris, Shanghai, and Los Angeles. The other reasons I don't like it are because New York doesn't seem to have any favorable trade status with these cities, the residents don't feel any more connected to the sisters than to any other ones, the sisters are never mentioned in the news, and most New Yorkers don't even know the "relationships" exist. If anything, I'd rather see a list of New York's largest trade partners, places most New Yorkers are originally from, or something to that effect. As for WP:USCITY, maybe this belongs in other cities but my feeling is not for New York. Ranever ( talk) 05:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The info box gives a "settled" date that is nowhere mentioned in the history text. So, what DOES that date refer to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.54 ( talk) 06:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good question, because not too much actually happened in 1625. You can read the following article from the Times about where that date came from: [5] -- Jleon ( talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The metro population figures in the info box and in the text are about 1,000,000 apart. Come on.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.54 ( talk) 06:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know where the 19 million figure is from, since the combined statistical area is 21.2 million. Anyway it's fixed now to the standard metro area of 18.8 million. -- Jleon ( talk) 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember the history but about 2-6 weeks ago, someone came in with much larger metro population figures for various New York entities without supplying a useful direct source (I think a very derivative one was offered which itself gave no worthwhile source if any). There's a legitimate question about what dates (census vs estimate) to use and also whether to use the inner New York-Wayne-White Plains Metro Area, or also to add Newark, Edison and Long Island, but they didn't seem to cover that difference. I did some reversions/corrections, but either I was incomplete, or the numbers were changed again. —— Shakescene ( talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I do see where that higher number came from, from the footnote that was deleted. It seems to come from adding the Bridgeport, Ct metro area ( Fairfield County, Connecticut) to the larger NY-LI-Newark-Edison Consolidated Metro Area. I'm not sure if the Census does that anywhere, or whether it might be a justifiable classification even if the Census never uses it. —— Shakescene ( talk) 09:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That would make sense only if one thinks that the Bridgeport-Stamford metro area does not exist indpendently of the NYC metro area. Bridgeport-Stamford is still technically a separate urban area (as of 2000) and hence a separate metropolitan area. It is true, however, that if one looks at the town level commuting statistics that the NYC metro area and Bridgeport-Stamford metro area do share suburbs. For example, the town of Weston is a suburb of both NYC and Stamford. -- Polaron | Talk 13:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.