This 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

I'm posting this to explain the edit I just made to the article where I went through the article standardizing references to New York City in favor of just "New York," with a few exceptions. Where the word "City" is in the name of the entity (like the Subway), or in the first reference to the city after a reference to New York State, I left the word "City" in. If I missed any instances, feel free to fix them, but I favor standardizing in favor of a simple "New York," which is both shorter and the official name of the city, instead of the ping-ponging between NY and NYC that was throughout the article before. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 20:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unneeded as both are still quite commonly used and its natural to vary between the two. Also, there are many spots where it creates ambiguity, even if the sentence is not directly comparing the city and te state. And frankly I would have gone the other way to match the article title, if only one were to be used. But again, I think it's unneeded, as I dont understand the aversion to the (correct) use of "New York City". Reverted. oknazevad ( talk) 20:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The aversion to "New York City" is because that is not the actual name of the city. The city's name is no more "New York City" than the second largest city is Los Angeles City. The city is just "New York," the reason everyone from the guy that designed the city website to a guy on the street adds the "City" part is the unfortunate coincidence that the state has the same name. New York City is simply an incorrect usage that has become the norm due to that unpleasant coincidence. I'll let your reversion stand, but you are mistaken. New York City is an inaccurate construction. To be honest, I'd rather this article was at "New York (city)" to drive home this point. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 20:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Usage of NYC is not "incorrect" - and it is the title of this article. It serves to make clear what is being referred to. Saying "NYC" makes sentences clearer, and I see no real advantage in removing it. -- JimWae ( talk) 20:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, see the charter for the city at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dycd/downloads/pdf/citycharter2004.pdf This should be cited in the article.-- JimWae ( talk) 20:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Which proves my point. That is the City Charter for the City of New York. They explicitly state the city's name to be just "New York". D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 20:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

@Dralwik: Where "City of New York" and "New York City" appear capitalized many times - even outside of titles - and so NOT "incorrect". Nowhere is any "official name" stated. -- JimWae ( talk) 20:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy indent, Batman. This conversation isn't helping anything, so let's move on. There's bigger problems in the city -- and Wikipedia -- than New York's actual name, anyways. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 20:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the charter says the full, official name is "the City of New York". As a lifelong New Yorker, I'm going to tell you that "New York City" is not incorrect by any stretch, and is widely used. Not saying its the official name, but neither is "Los Angeles" of "Chicago"; those are common, and correct, short forms. So is "New York City", which has the advantage of being unambiguous in relation to the state. oknazevad ( talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave it at this. No point in arguing over one word on the Internet for such a famous city. Besides, the British really are to blame. Why couldn't they have named the Province Hudson and avoided this whole mess? Welcome to New York, Hudson... D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 20:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• This has come up before but I cant find the old talk. I will try to explain with an example what the old talk was trying to do. The old talk raised a good point in that we must make sure our readers know we are tlaking about the city.

i.e, New York suffered seven major yellow fever epidemics from 1702 to 1800. (yes most will assume its the city and not the state that had the epidemics)

Best thing for our reader would be to drop New York were possible like = The city suffered seven major yellow fever epidemics from 1702 to 1800. (no confusion here for anyone - its clear as a bell). Moxy ( talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to consider using panoramic images for the Cityscape section? These images definitely need updating, anyway - and I also don't see the reason for asymmetry between Midtown Manhattan (2 pics) vs one for Lower Manhattan - maybe just one good pic for each should do. Furthermore, I believe the Empire State Building should be an integral portion of any Midtown image. Overall, this section carries a shabby appearance as is. What do people think? Castncoot ( talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

James title was Duke of York not "Duke of York and Albany" as implied in the article link, as that specific title was not created until the year 1716. 27 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.123.153 ( talk) 11:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, does the Gulf stream affect the climate of New York City? If I compare the climate of New York City to the climates of Toronto, Detroit and Chicago, there is not a large difference, but New York City is slightly warmer during the winter. Is this because of the Atlantic Ocean or because of winds blowing from southern direction on the eastern side of the Appalachians? What is the influence of the Gulf stream on the ocean temperature and does this keep the city warmer during winter? Are the southern winds warmed by the Gulf stream? -- 91.157.12.243 ( talk) 06:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a modest influence from the ocean which keeps NYC milder in the winter. Of course, New York is also further south than Toronto and at a lower elevation than Chicago. The Appalachians to the west also tend to shield NYC from the worst of the cold outbreaks which plunge south out of Canada. The Gulf Stream itself, however, is well offshore at NYC's latitude, and the only real influence is that it helps cause coastal storms to intensify as they make their way northeast up the coast. Famartin ( talk) 06:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Please, could you add something about what you wrote to the climate section in the article? By the way, if I look at this pic File:Golfstrom.jpg, there really is an influence based on that map on the ocean temperature, but I don't know what time of a year the map represents and what temperature the green color indicates. I wish there would be more information about the climate, what causes it, than just telling that the temperature is x and precipitation is y and therefore it's x on the Köppen. -- 91.157.12.243 ( talk) 06:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is: why the temperature is x and the precipitation is y? -- 91.157.12.243 ( talk) 06:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As for your picture File:Golfstrom.jpg, actually do you see that cold tongue coming around Cape Cod and heading southwest? That's actually a cold counter-current, the Labrador Current which meets the Gulf Stream in two places, near Grand Banks and again at Cape Hatteras. As for adding that info to the article... I probably should cite something 'official' and I'm kinda lazy right now ;) Famartin ( talk) 09:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Cape Hatteras: "Also near Cape Hatteras, two major Atlantic currents collide, namely the southerly-flowing cold water Labrador Current and the northerly-flowing warm water Florida Current (Gulf Stream)." Ok, so do these both ocean currents infuence the climate of New York City? How much? Which is a stronger influence? -- 91.157.12.243 ( talk) 09:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably the one that passes closer to NYC ;) Famartin ( talk) 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following after end of demographics section(the "baby boom" ending).
Despite the "baby boom", according to polls many of New Yorkers young adults(<30) don't want to connect their future with the city or state. They want to move to another state. ^[1] See also the table on the right, which clearly shows that currently New York have relatively low population increase, especially compared to the south states cities(e.g. in Texas), or similar far north(e.g. in Vermont). Generally this is uncommon in New York history, and may be future society problems(like lack of innovation, not enough workforce to health care), similar to age-gap, "old society" countries.

The source is only example, there is a lot of the other in Internet too, You can easily choose, add. This is probably most important fact in demographics section from last years, and decisions made especially by raised/educated in NYC young people will see the results in future. If You don't think that this paragraph is too long You can add the reasons too(check the Internet/newspapers/books sources- they include it):

• The cost of living in city of NYC, and London etc. compared with the hard ways to get a well paid job(because of many older, experienced applying also).
• Moving out business, industry etc. from NYC (the best example, biggest financial companies after 9/11 finally decided that they don't need an Wall Street address.
• Lot of traffic, time to get to the work, very narrow streets. Cost of travel.
• Very strict laws, bureaucracy costs, which make of course moving not only the "workplaces" but also "hard steps" that are annoying, and not to walk by younger.
• Less identification with one city in modern, "global village".
• Crime problems, clearly not solved by strict laws
• Expectations of using the "American way of life", with own car, gun.
• Angry on politics, with "bad examples" - for e.g. the mayor saying that "gun free/limited" cities are the best, but by himself always travelling with security agent.
• Differencing the laws and very big gap between(for) poor and rich(this is also in text, but lacks other examples e.g. people with large sums of money, or influences in police can get the "carry" license for handgun, others not).
• Night life similar in other increasing in population cities, but much more cheaper(and nobody will know everyone in 100,000 city, similar to NYC)
• Usage of Internet from workplace to home, that lower needed travel to do things(e.g. travel to location in New York or Washington is no longer requested, with working-via-wire, or contact shop,work, govt., friends etc.)
• Much lower taxes, cheaper education, need of workforce in other cities.
• Attract-to-the-town/city by other local authorities, like land for "1$", or moving in cheaply.
• Better climate, just also in case of possible being homeless by crisis, "moving homes" spaces(and much more space to build own), or better social help.
• Less possible terro. atta. , less delays because of checking, asking, controlling, also with lower crime(better gun laws and better open, tolerant, helping society, especially in other Northern states, like Vermont). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.180.200 ( talk • contribs)

 Not done The demographic bit about young people leaving might be worth adding, but the rest of this runs afoul of the policy against original research, particularly speculative assertions about the future. Sailsbystars ( talk) 01:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I request that an addition be made to the Media of New York section, specifically concerning animation.

Somewhere in the section, a paragraph (or a few sentences) should be added in to say that New York was and still is important in the animation world, with it being the home of the Fleischer Studios (and its successor Famous Studios) as well as other studios that were well-known at the time of their existence (such as Van Beuren Studios), as well as having several animation houses and schools within the city limits.

If there's one single reason why this should be done, it's this (besides cultural significance): the Popeye shorts (except between 1938 and 1943) were all produced in New York, specifically in Midtown. We all know how popular these shorts still are today, and in an era where it seems ignorance reigns and people think that the cartoons from the Golden Age of Hollywood were created for television - when they produced specifically to be a "dinner mint" in a movie theater program - I personally think the time is right to put the record straight and keep it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.133.206 ( talk) 03:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I admire your dedication to animation history. However, in an already large article, it's difficult to squeeze in mention of every way in which a city like New York has been influential. A sentence, perhaps, but an entire paragraph would probably be too much. Moreover, that section, and its main article, Media in New York City, seem to focus more on the current situation than on historical details. History of New York City (1898–1945) might be a better place for this information. Powers ^T 21:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There are highs and lows for the climate but there is no mean. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.40.209.178 ( talk) 22:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be something put in the article about Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy that has struck and hindered the city. Staten Island and Manhattan were hit particularly hard, as were other boroughs. This is a major event and needs to be in the article, just as it would be if a major hurricane hit Miami and shut parts of the city down or a major earthquake hit Los Angeles and shut parts of the city down. This is the problem with reading the New York City article on Wikipedia; you guys always try to hide or sweep the negatives under the rug. I'm sorry; this is a major event, it happened, it should be in the article.

In the second sentence in the " Sister cities" paragraph, it says that all the sister cities except for Johannesburg are national political capitals. This is not true for Tel-Aviv. Tel-Aviv is NOT recognized by the country itself as a national capital, but rather Jerusalem is. Tel Aviv served as the temporary de facto capital of Israel from May 1948 to December 1948. Since then, the official capital has been Jerusalem.

Please note that the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not recognise Israel's control of East-Jerusalem, while Israel's parliament, the Knesset, is located in West Jerusalem, and so are most governmental ministries, the Israeli Supreme Court and the official residence of the Prime Minister. (see Givat Ram for more details). Israel's sovereignty over West-Jerusalem has never been disputed, and only the " Jerusalem Law", which states that "greater Jerusalem" is the capital, was not accepted by the U.N (with the U.S abstaining). Therefore, the majority of foreign embassies in Israel are located outside of Jerusalem. (many in Tel-Aviv, but some, like the Bolivian, Greek, Paraguayan and Costa-Rican embassies are in Jerusalem, and some are in other cities). So, apart for having many foreign embassies, Tel-Aviv could not be considered by any means the national political capital of Israel. It should be excluded as well in the pargraph.

For further reading, please see Status of Jerusalem. Fastidipedia ( talk) 14:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe Hong Kong should be listed as " Hong Kong, China". The city of Hong Kong is a bona fide part of China. Hong Kong, China redirects to Hong Kong itself. User Guerrilla of the Renmin ( Talk)'s edit summaries tend to be ambiguous, but it appears he/she agrees that Hong Kong is a city and also that it is part of China. Yet he/she contradicts himself/herself by wanting to have Hong Kong listed alone without the suffix "China". This makes no sense. He/she has now begun engaging in an edit war, and therefore I am restraining myself from re-reverting his/her edits at this time. He/she has stuck in an unrelated edit in the Climate section adjoining this edit as a possible mask. Interestingly, in an edit summary, he/she seems to admit to being "perhaps one of the most diehard anti-TW independence veteran editors" ("TW" likely means "Taiwan".) His/her motivations for pressing his/her point appear to be unclear and unconstructive at this time, and I additionally find it inappropriate for him/her to be airing (and possibly infusing?) political views on Wikpedia.

User Benji Powell and I both feel that both Hong Kong and Singapore should be suffixed by a nationality, no differently from every other city on the list. WP:MOS also has consistency guidelines supporting this. This makes two in favor of this point versus Guerilla's (insofar) sole viewpoint.

I also believe that an administrator should look into this matter.

What do people think? Castncoot ( talk) 05:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Simply out of courtesy, I have allowed over 24 hours to have elapsed, and no response from Guerrilla of the Renmin ( Talk) on this page. This despite his/her reverting two recent edits on the main article page promptly, within an hour.

Therefore, I am generously instituting a very reasonable compromise here. @ Guerrilla of the Renmin ( Talk): you yourself have admitted that Hong Kong is a city in China, per extrapolation from your edit summaries. It is now a bona fide part of China and not a separate country, only a special administrative region OF China. You have not provided an adequate justification for leaving China out as a suffix of Hong Kong. On the other hand, given that Singapore actually IS its own country as well as being a city, I in turn will (reluctantly) give in and allow for Singapore to remain a solo entry without a nationality suffix, although I believe even this violates WP:MOS guidelines with regards to consistency in lists and tables.

Please do not escalate this into an edit war. That would be entirely unproductive and unconstructive toward this article. If you have any comments, bring them to THIS forum. As an additional piece of advice, I suggest that you keep any political inclinations you may have toward the China/Taiwan/Hong Kong region out of Wikipedia as well, rather than attempting to indoctrinate them into the NYC article or into any other amongst any of the Wikipedia forums. Violation of either of the above tenets will deserve administrative scrutiny. Castncoot ( talk) 07:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My complaints are the clear inability to parse simple English (double negatives are covered in elementary school, folks), and the false claim that I do not view HK as part of China, which is almost equivalent to an accusation of ignorance or of being sympathetic to HK independence. Regarding the unrelated edit to Climate, it was sloppy and in-courteous of you to blanket revert a needed return to what has been the stable wording in that section for years. And, no, this talk page is not a WP:FORUM, and I suggest you not be so reckless in your remarks.

Besides, I won't insist on one listing or the other for HK, although I prefer "Hong Kong" alone or switching "China" to "People's Republic of China" in all instances in the Global Partner. GotR ^Talk 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to switch "China" to "People's Republic of China" in all such instances in that list - I don't believe it's necessary, but I have no problem with that.

Castncoot ( talk) 00:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool map. New York in stunning 360 degree detail-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Stunning" it is. Thanks for sharing :) -- ThunderingTyphoons! ( talk) 18:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at the London article as to whether London, New York, or anywhere else can be described as the 'financial capital of the world'. Before arguing about specific cities it might be useful to consider if any city can be described as the 'financial capital of the world and, if so, what sources would be required to support this. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So, we have had 'Bold', 'Revert', how about 'Discuss'? As a starting point let me remind everyone that this is an encyclopedia not a 'how much I support my home town' bulletin board. We need to find some independent, authoritative, reliable sources to determine whether any city can properly be described as the world's financial capital and, if so, which one. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The facts, the sources, the edit summaries, and even your London page's discussion all speak for themselves - the bottom line, if you want to change that page to read that London is the second largest financial center, that will be fine; so feel free to edit that article objectively. Otherwise, there is nothing further to discuss here, no indication for this article to bend over backward to conform to any other article or to any geopolitical pressure, and no indication to change something that's been longstandingly intact before and after lengthy discussion.

And oh, by the way, New York is not my "hometown", nor would I edit this article any differently even if I lived there. Castncoot ( talk) 23:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that any particular editor was supporting their home town, just that this is a stance that we must all avoid.

Why do we not get all the sources together in one place and then discuss them objectively? There are a few general principles that we can apply. Sources should be recent, independent, and authoritative. We should probably downgrade sources based in the city that they support. There may be other principles that we could apply in advance.

If there is no clear winner then we must avoid using the term 'financial capital' for any city.

I have started the page Talk:World_financial_capital Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

May I point out, Castncoot, if the result of a London discussion were to conclude that London was second, yes of course the NYC article wouldn't be affected, but if such a discussion were to resolve on naming London as the financial capital or as joint financial capital with New York then the two pages would be directly contradicting one another. To keep some information on a subject as fast-changing as the world of economics on the basis of it being long-standing is silly. If the evidence suggests that London (or indeed anywhere else) was in fact a larger financial centre than New York or that the roles of 1st and 2nd were constantly being swapped between the two cities, then it is factually wrong to call New York the financial capital of the world, just like it would be factually wrong to claim London was if it turns out that it is really second or joint first. This isn't about geopolitics, it's about getting the facts right on a factual encyclopaedia.-- ThunderingTyphoons! ( talk) 15:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This wouldn't be anywhere near the first set of articles where statements in different articles contradict in Wikipedia. You can find them all over. There must obviously be a basis for Wikipedia's guidelines to accommodate this. We should not be inventing our own guidelines for Wikipedia. But if you look at the first source in the New York article, it indicates that London is actually currently weakening and has recently weakened relative to New York, which is also not only my sense of how things are going but also what I hear in various media reports; and that is a London-based source! That, in fact, is the source of all those quoted in the NYC article that takes about the LEAST strong position suggesting New York is the uncontested tops. London is strong in forex and some derivatives. But New York has the edge in the rest and the vast and deep American market to tap in to. In the end, regional centers will pop up worldwide, so London will have to develop its own smaller backyard. It will end up being a contest between NYC and a city in China (including Hong Kong). I am vehemently opposed to saying London is tops simply because it ain't true! But I also respect the prerogative of those who are editing another article (London), in which I have invested no time, interest, or energy otherwise, to edit it as they deem fit. Have YOU put any time, interest, or energy into improving the New York article elsewhere or overall?

But these issues aside, Wikipedia protocol is the bottom line here as editors: as long as statements are constructive and well-cited, they belong in the article. So New York's article can be read one way, and London's another way. That gives the reader two perspectives to choose from and make up his or her own mind, and I think that's actually a very good thing.

Castncoot ( talk) 15:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to have two articles that both say that a given city is 'the financial capital of the world' the only way to do this would be to say something has been described by a particular source as 'the financial capital of the world' but I do not think this is particularly useful to our readers.

It is not true to say that just because we can find a source or some sources that say something that we can put what they say in WP. If there are other sources which say something different then we must show the various views expressed by sources giving wp:due weight to the two views. That is exactly what I am suggesting that we do. If there is a clear consensus amongst sources that a particular city is the 'the financial capital of the world' then we can say that, otherwise we cannot.

I have started a discussion on this subject at Talk:World_financial_capital where you are welcome to contribute. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been having trouble consistently for the past few days saving this article and then always got a timeout error. My edits *did* save but had to reload the page. Part of the issue is too many templates and templates within templates. Soon we will be able to use Lua for templates, which will help. In the interim, I have changed things to we link to the climate box rather than embed it in the article. This change means I was able to save the page successfully! Cheers. -- Aude ( talk) 04:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that my edit was reverted. If people have trouble saving the page, it's because of too many complex templates, like cites and climate box. It's a sign that some stuff needs to be split off into subarticles or remove stuff like the climate box to help with being able to save the page. Not ideal, of course. -- Aude ( talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rapid version of climate template: I have used a quick-cache version of the climate template, to reduce edit-preview by 7 seconds:

• Template:New York City weatherbox/cached

That rapid template has been tested to generate the same format climate table, but uses only the minimal wikitext markup, to format the table, as copied from the output of Template:New York City weatherbox, and by that method it bypasses the 7-second, larger template. - Wikid77 ( talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.

Castncoot ( talk) 21:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The article can be reformatted faster by using {cite_quick} and rounding the values for {convert}.

It would be possible to reduce edit-preview, by another 15-20 seconds faster, by using the rapid Template:Cite_quick to format the cite footnotes. If there are no objections, I will change the footnotes later today. Because of the prior slow templates, the article has been hitting " wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" when trying to edit-preview or Save a whole-page edit. Obviously, other details also need to be trimmed, or moved into subarticles, but unless the edit-preview is made faster, then it will be difficult to even continue with editing for other changes. - Wikid77 ( talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Switched to 345 {cite_quick}: I have just now edited the article to use the rapid {cite_quick} template, which will reduce the edit-preview (or Save) during an edit, by 15-20 seconds. Other cite templates can still be used, such as a mix of {cite_quick} with {cite_web} or {cite news}, etc. Earlier today, the article kept showing " wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" as has been happening for weeks now. Article " New York City" had become almost impossible to edit, when often hitting the 60-second reformat timeout limit, but now, it reformatted in only 17 seconds, despite the mass of excessive clutter and rambling information stuffed into the page. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is an RfC on whether any city should be described as the 'financial capital of the world' at Talk:World_financial_capital. Editors here are welcome to comment. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has now expired with a clear consensus not to use the term 'financial capital of the world'. I have changed both the London and New York City articles to say 'one of the world's leading financial centres/centers'. Now this argument has been resolved, I suggest that some of the excessive references are removed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there has been no such consensus, you've tried in vain to push that agenda before - it's all in your mind and design. Castncoot ( talk) 11:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at the RfC page. There is a clear consensus not to use terms like 'financial capital of the world' which obviously applies to synonymous term like 'financial centre of the world'. We have a link to financial centre where the rankings of various cities by various bodies are displayed and discussed for interested readers. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing the statement to say 'called' is just weasel words. NYC has probably been called almost everything by somebody somewhere. Are we to list everything that has ever been said about NYC? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

To show what I mean, are we going to put [ this] in for example? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that's already in there. And yes, New York is absolutely the rudest, loudest, and possibly dirtiest city in the U.S. There's nothing wrong with putting that in the article, as long as it's appropriately sourced. The viewpoint that I take is that you have to call a spade a spade, even if it makes others feel sore for a few minutes. The fact is that the dispute about the financial capital status has NOT been resolved. You rammed the pretense of a consensus through, and in the worst possible way. There is not, and was never, any real consensus in the Rfc. I had made my point clear that the articles should remain the way the way they were, and I left the discussion stating clearly I had no interest in prolonging the discussion. That's not the same thing as relenting to the opposite viewpoint. I do also have a real life, you know.

Furthermore, "has been called" is not a weasel term and was definitely not covered by the Rfc. It is saying something completely different from ascertaining that one city or another holds the title, and it's appropriately sourced. Castncoot ( talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

More problematic is the use of blanket reversion. The ensuing edits, a legal necessity (seriously, do not put copyright notices in references!) were removed for no reason. Please don't do that again. oknazevad ( talk) 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It was an inadvertent error. Obviously so, because the actual sources in contention were left without the copyright tags. Castncoot ( talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

After a discussion and RfC on 'Financial capital of the world we now have:

has been called the world's leading financial center.

The lead also contains:

has been described as the cultural capital of the world.

and

iconified as "The Crossroads of the World" .

In my opinion these are promotional or WP:Peacock terms which have no place in an encyclopedia article. The facts are that, for any major city in the world, there will be people who will love it (or a particular aspect of it) or hate it (or a particular aspect) and, undoubtedly, most of these views will be expressed in a reliable source somewhere. To selectively add the most complimentary of these opinions is overly promotional and I cannot see any benefit in trying to add a neutral or representative selection. In my opinion we should not have them at all.

My suggestion is to replace these with more neutral and factual phrases such as:

one of the world's leading financial centres and one of the world's major cultural centres.

I am not going to fight a battle over this but anyone interested in seeing this article promoted to FA status would be advised to heed this advice. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Forget being formally knighted with FA status - that's a bogus ceremonialization, in my opinion. Better just to speak the truth in the article, and from that standpoint, the article has in reality earned FA status. Speaking of which, check out my latest edit.

Best, Castncoot ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstand my point. My example was meant to be exactly the kind of thing that should not be in this article.

Are you really planning to add everything that has ever been said about NYC? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Come on, obviously not, that's really stretching it. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not your grandfather's encyclopedia, either. The world has changed since then, and today's reader is entitled to pertinent and well-sourced information. Castncoot ( talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. If I had a nickle for everytime I read something similar I'd be rich.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.230.251.33 ( talk) 17:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a small edit to the borough section, removing the population estimates from 2009, because they were out dated and considering we have a chart right above with the most current estimates, unnecessary and redundant. FamAD123 ( talk) 01:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that In Europe sister cities you numbered Pristina but you placed it in Albania.Pristina is located in Serbian south province Kosovo and Metohija. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.206.73 ( talk) 08:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Used to be in Albania. Epicgenius^{( talk to me • see my contributions)} 15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the URL for Table 5 in Footnote 142 from: http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2009-05-36.xls to: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2009/tables/SUB-EST2009-05-36.xls to fix a dead link. Please change the URL for Table 1 in Footnote 142 from: http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009.html to: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/city.html to fix a dead link. Avarson ( talk) 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Working on it... -- Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Done-- Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am making a request to add the city logo to the infobox. There are official logo that NYC government uses that could put in the template. I found 2 in use right now, the state websites and the second official logo. Maybe someone can add one. Picaxe01 ( talk) 05:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• http://blog.rsanyc.net/hurricane-sandy-blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NYC-Logo.jpg

• http://logok.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nyc.png

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change (inside the last entry of the Infobox)

| footnohttp://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/tables/SUB-EST2011-01.csvtes

to

| footnote = http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/tables/SUB-EST2011-01.csvtes

Sachinagarwal25 ( talk) 17:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Another user removed the bad markup. This is identical to footnote #9 and I see no purpose in re-adding it. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was the same editor who made the request who fixed it. Guess the autoconfirmation kicked in. To that I saw good work and welcome aboard! oknazevad ( talk) 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Since a while, the sunshine given in the climate table is expressed in percentages. I, however, think it is very objectionable to show this instead of the sunshine hours, because it is inaccurate as well as you exactly have to know on which latitude New York City lies constantly. It is to me more a nuisance rather than an improvement. I'd really want to revert it but I don't know how much support I'll get on such an important, many-watched article. -- OPolkruikenz ( talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Giving percentages alone (which are imprecisely reported to the nearest % by even NOAA) is a hassle in that it may compel readers to look up what is the maximum daily average sun hours. However, though one only needs to divide by the number of days in a month, total monthly hours has some detractors. A potential fix would be to report both, but with NOAA, the percent sources I've seen run through 2009, and the hours sources are only 1961–1990, and sometimes 1961–1981, and a mix-and-match is not healthy. So I say, if the time periods do not match, one OR the other should be provided. Anyways, it is also my view that there should be centralised discussion on which to use; arbitrarily switching on an article-by-article basis isn't healthy. My personal complaint with giving %-ages via {{ Weather box}} is that that template colours some ranges too brightly—for example, the 28% in December at Pittsburgh#Climate really is gloomy to most Americans, but it's coloured approximately the same as the 150–200 hr range. GotR ^Talk 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information -- OPolkruikenz ( talk) 14:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sunshine hours is standard in Wikipedia, percentages - not. You should undo change. Subtropical-man ( talk) 22:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I rather see sunshine hours shown in the weatherbox but the percentages can be discussed in the text because it helps readers understand whether 225 hours of sunshine is a lot or little in a month and therefore describe the climate more accurately. Not a lot of people understand monthly values but at the same time, the percentages are hard to understand as well (I would say much more harder to understand than monthly values as you can divide it to get daily values). You cannot put monthly values and percentages in the same climate box because they are from different time periods (sun 1961-1990, percentages up to 2009). Looking at the percentages is more difficult to interpret than monthly values but describing it should alleviate this issue. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The climate description here ( New York City#Climate) is good as is, and even includes an annual percentage. If no one else objects, I am reverting to hours within the infobox. GotR ^Talk 21:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Reverting it to monthly values is easier. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 15:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The redirect for New York, New York leads to New York City. It should also disambiguate to the borough Manhattan (New York County), which is in New York State. Epicgenius^{( talk to me • see my contributions)} 21:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your change was incorrect, and I have reverted it. In fact, in common usage, "New York, New York" means "New York City" in New York State. It is only in postal addresses that "New York, New York" refers to Manhattan. The controlling policy here is WP:COMMONNAME. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The name is common. Do you think that mail sent to Flushing, Queens will have the address "New York, NY" on it? It is only Manhattan that "New York, NY" usually refers to, as most tourists don't visit the outer boroughs anyway. Epicgenius^{( talk to me • see my contributions)} 14:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is neither at New York nor does that title re-direct here. To me, this means that a link to New York (disambiguation) is redundant. But someone disagrees. Any discussion?? Georgia guy ( talk) 18:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are plenty of cities called "New York", all of which are listed at New York (disambiguation). We could create a new disambiguation page, but that seems redundant to me. Either way, people looking for a city called New York other than New York City need to be able to access the article they are looking for through a hatnote on this article. New York (city) redirects here, and even if it did not, "New York City" is ambiguous. Neelix ( talk) 17:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The name "New York" itself should refer to numerous towns named "New York". It is not normally a name for provinces or states. We don't need a new dab page, as it is unnecessary. Epicgenius^{( talk to me • see my contributions)} 14:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for pointing out that the other places are towns and not cities. My mistake. Neelix ( talk) 14:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the cited reference source, Democrats comprise 85% of registered voters, not the percentage listed in the article. (2,784,642 Democrats and 474,579 Republicans, according to the cited 2008 source.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.100.136 ( talk) 06:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to get some more opinions on the current lead [1]. I recently made some changes aimed at better summarising the articles body, removing some of the overlong citations and condensing some of the puff [2]. This was rejected quite emphatically by an editor [3]. Major changes as I see it were:

• Using the latest source already present in the lead to describe the "populous urban agglomerations" and be more accurate in the number.
• Use official for the alternative names as they came from official websites
• Move the history of New York to the first paragraph and add some info on pre-european settlement and growth.
• Put the location of the city in the next paragraph and actually say where it is located instead of using the vague "one of the world's largest natural harbors".
• Adding in information about the cities climate that was taken from the articles body
• Added information about the cities demographics to the lead that was also taken from the articles body. I admit this was a little weak and potentially outdates, but it was the best I could get from what was already in the article.
• Condensed the information on the cities culture into a single pargraph and removed some excess verbage and citations. I beleive this is probably the edit that caused the strong reaction from the reverting editor. I feel I covered most of the points about how New York is an important cultural and economical center with famous landmarks without making it appear like a tourist brouchere. AIRcorn  (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You're from the British Commonwealth (no issue with that, per se - I love Brits, Aussies, and the rest), but in your specific case, your grammar, spelling, and fund of knowledge of American cities and American WP:MOS appear to be poor. For you to make significant changes to this article would represent a risky exercise at best and would jeopardize the welfare of THIS article, a scenario that cannot be allowed. Far worse, your ethics are an issue as well. Go find another article to sabotage.

Castncoot ( talk) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tough. I am here now and even more determined to create a good article out of this. You do not own this article. Now do you have any response to the actual edits? AIRcorn  (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn, you know as well as I do that this article was relatively recently and officially promoted to Good Article status, and by someone other than myself. Obviously then, this article is doing something correctly, and this appears to have ticked (angered) you. You also know very well that I don't claim to own any Wikipedia article. As long as you aren't a sock, you're as welcome here as anyone else. So let's move beyond this silliness. What I want to know is why you have been perenially obsessed with this article describing a city you apparently know so very little about. I'll be the first one to admit that I know very little about London and would therefore do an absolutely lousy job trying to edit that article to any significant degree. I would end up doing an absolute disservice to that article and therefore stay away from it - in fact, I don't know if I've ever edited it, out of respect for its usual editors. My philosophy is that if an editor doesn't have a comfortable level of insightful knowledge about a subject, he or she should stick to peripheral editing of that subject, not attempt the coup that you did for apparently selfish personal reasons.

Castncoot ( talk) 03:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to say here that I found Aircorn's edits, besides the grammatical mistakes, to be pretty horrid in terms of composition. His paragraphs cohered much less than what has been there for a while - they were just a string of sentences that might or might not be related to one another -- or might be better related to sentences in other paragraphs. (Also: 1. To Aircorn: being built on 3 islands is not what makes NYC so densely populated - especially not Staten Island, 2. the city is also referred to simply as New York.) The first paragraph should not be heavy on history, but tell the reader things about NYC that make it notable. In fact, I think there may be more historic detail in the lede than is needed. Native Indians/First Nations/Native Americans were the first known settlers of every place in the Americas, but including that in the lede for every such place may be duly respectful, but perhaps less informative - unless we clearly know which tribe settled in that area (iirc, for NYC, even Lenape is actually not specific enough. However, Aircorn's "various Native American tribes" is just wordiness.) Yes, we want to mention the Dutch - and New Amsterdam -- and perhaps that many place names came from the Dutch (and from the tribes). And was New Amsterdam not one of the very earliest settlements in North America? We also must not omit the English - but perhaps the lede does not need all the detail about "York" that is currently there. Perhaps we should not omit that NYC was a British stronghold throughout the American Revolutionary War, and that it was after the war and independence that NYC came to be the first capital & the most populous. (Aircorn's gloss of independence with "While under British rule the city became an important trading post and by 1790 it had became the country's largest city" supports not omitting the War of Independence.) The jump from 1790 to Statue of Liberty (unmentioned 1886) could be filled by mentioning the roles of the Erie Canal and waves of immigration role in NYC's increasingly becoming the country's commercial & population center. NYC was also a manufacturing center until about around the 1950s. Perhaps it is time to mention one of the most significant events this century -- the attack in 2001 -- & that NYC again has the tallest building in the USA. The Empire State Building {(King Kong)} is pretty well known around the world & might also merit lede inclusion. Btw, Global city is in the lede of Paris, Tokyo, London, Chicago, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Zurich - that's 8 of the top 10. That NYC has one of the lowest rates of car ownership in USA is perhaps surprising enough to also get lede mention. NYC's being a cultural & economic center has to do with Madison Ave, Broadway Theatre, NBC, CBS, ABC -- radio & TV, museums, banks, book and magazine publishers, Wall Street, NYSE, NASDAQ, etc..... Better that examples be given that support generalizations, than just give generalizations that, without details, sound like preening.-- JimWae ( talk) 08:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You do realise that a lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article? My edits may not have perfect, but at least that is what I was doing. We are an encylcopedia remember, which means providing historical details as well as demographics and other facts. Not a collection of New York has the best, highest, longest, most etc that the current monstrosity of a lead has. AIRcorn  (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and all those things I mentioned are in the article. Your edits put history prominently in the 1st paragraph. Readers want to first know what a place is, and what makes a place important now -- not what it used to be. I must question any judgement that the article is improved by moving all that history to the first paragraph &/or that not having history in the 1st paragraph is any reason it would no longer merit good article status. I do not see that you have made any cogent case that an article's giving reasons for a city's importance is grounds for removal.-- JimWae ( talk) 20:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

JimWae has hit the nail on the head here.

Castncoot ( talk) 15:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is easy to find other city articles that are "good articles" where history is NOT in the 1st paragraph, or even not included in the lede at all. It is easy to find FEATURED city articles where history does not appear until the 3rd or later paragraph. How can anyone justify giving as a reason to delist that history is not in the 1st paragraph?-- JimWae ( talk) 22:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not delisted because the history was not in the first paragraph. The reasons I delisted it are here where multiple reasons are given. It has been further clarified at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New York City. I don't really care where the history section in the lead goes, that was just one of many edits I made. My main purpose was to try and get the lead to more accurately summarise the articles body. AIRcorn  (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can accept that my rewording was not optimal, but maybe we can work together to create a lead that we can both find acceptable. The first sentence says that the New York Metropolitan Area is one of the most populous urban agglomerations in the world. Would we not be better to provide an accurate number. We have three different cites here, one in 2002 from an environmental science and conservation news site [4], a 2012 world atlas source [5] and a 2008 list from Demographia [6]. I think if included we should be more precise with the most recent data from the most reliable source. The latest Demographia listing (2013) [7] has New York at 8, which also corrosponds to the world atlas numbers. I therefore suggest that "one of the most populous urban agglomerations in the world" is changed to "the eight most populous urban agglomerations in the world". AIRcorn  (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, Aircorn, not to be rude, but please examine your own English grammar from that statement as you've proposed it. It would also be a bad idea because the article needs to focus on the City, not the metro area. Third, the population rank order of these metros is highly volatile between different sources because of the different ways authors classify the boundaries of metro areas. Therefore, "one of" really is the most valid and non-distracting way to express this and move on to the next topic quickly.

Castncoot ( talk) 04:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The two most recent and reliable sources give the same number. If the metro area is not a focus of this article then why not just remove that statement from the lead. AIRcorn  (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I can find sources that say it's #3 or 4. Every city article mentions the surrounding metro area for perspective but doesn't dwell on it with intricate detail. Need to return to real life now.

Castncoot ( talk) 06:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Castncoot ( talk) 06:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing "one of the" to "the eighth" is hardly adding intricate detail. Can we at least mention this with the details somewhere in the demographics then. That way we can remove the citations after the statement. AIRcorn  (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought changing to "the eighth" would be fine. Now, I see that sources disagree on numbering, the years are different, and that one source specifies that estimates for Asia are quite imprecise. Saying "the eighth" is too definite. Saying "One of the eight largest" is well supported, is not too definitive, and still conveys "one of the largest". I think "one of the eight largest" would be worth considering.-- JimWae ( talk) 16:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I get a warning from McAfee for the worldatlas site. Do not know if it is a false positive or not. Also, Demographia has NYC as 3rd, but uses very old data. Wikipedia has NYC as 4th at List of metropolitan areas by population - but even that is for 2011, not 2012. While it is not up to us to decide which source is correct, perhaps we should be more careful about which sources are linked. -- JimWae ( talk) 17:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I get nothing from world maps with McAfee, but it doesn't sound like a terribly reliable source. Urban agglomeration lists it at seven using 2011 Demographica data (the 2012 data from the same source lists it at eight. "One of the eight largest" sounds good to me. Maybe we should just use this source as it looks reasonably reliable (it is from a group that specialises in this stuff) and seems to be updated each year. I still think it should get a mention at the end of the first paragraph in demographics as well. AIRcorn  (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I also think "Crossroads of the World" (about Times Square) is unnecessary for the lede & needlessly sounds too much like bragging (at least so in the lede). Same thing for "New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, has been called the world's leading financial center[48][49][50][51][52]". Wall Street is so famous that any "hagiography" is unnecessary and seems to detract from its importance - and having 5 sources for what it is called suggests that no single source is authoritative. Something like this would be sufficient to convey its importance: "New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, is home to the New York Stock Exchange (the world's largest stock exchange by total market capitalization of its listed companies)[53] as well as numerous other financial institutions." OR "The international financial district is concentrated in Lower Manhattan, and includes Wall Street (home of the New York Stock Exchange), the Federal Reserve Bank, and the World Trade Center (partially reconstructed)." -- JimWae ( talk) 08:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A little late to the party, but to put my two cents in, there's plenty reason to retain what would seem like boasted information like Times Square being considered the "crossroads of the world", NYSE as the world's largest, etc, these I feel should belong in the lead, assuming their brevity. As JimWae said, readers want to see what makes this city important, right now. Of course we want to maintain neutrality, and living in Brooklyn, I especially do not want to display any conflict of interest. That being said, if you review any other articles on big cities, such as London (which is GA), it boasts of its world importance in culture, finance, etc, in much a similar fashion. The important thing to understand is that this is encyclopedic information, and factual, and therefore should not be confused with bragging. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I spent a lot of my time here working with the Good Article process so am familiar with how it works. I conducted an individual reassessment (seen here Talk:New York City/GA2) and allowed a month for my concerns to be addressed. As it was an individual reassessment it was up to me as the editor opening it to close it, much like a normal Good Article review. If you disagree with this decision te next step in the process is to go to a community reassessment, which will be close by an uninvolved editor (link here). You might like to ask at WP:GAN if you want further clarification. The edits I did after the reassessment were my attempt to fix the major concerns I had with the article when I was reviewing it and are not part of the reassessment. AIRcorn  (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have an issue with using data from different sources from different years to draw comparisons between seemingly arbitary cities in regards to size. Although it may very well be true, it is still original research as we are synthesing primary sources to draw our own conclusion. That the sources don't match or use the same years just makes it flawed original research. Also we should not be deciding what cities to compare New York to, this should be done by secondary sources as this indicates that making these comparisons is notable. The information I am refering to is found in this edit [8], but I have found simialar instances here in the past and most, if not all, originate from one editor. AIRcorn  (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing against comparisons but that piece of information is not significant and I agree that things like that should be removed. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 15:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not at all original research, Aircorn; the refs include direct, identical year-by-year comparisons for New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Examine the statement and the refs carefully. And it's an ABSOLUTELY pertinent comparison which gives the reader an idea of the scale of NYC's population in reference to the populations of the next two largest U.S. cities.

Castncoot ( talk) 17:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What reference includes this comparison? As far as I can tell you have looked at the census results yourself and made the comparisons. In other words you are doing the research yourself. So yes it is original research. Now this may be acceptable in some circumstances, but you should have a good reason for doing so. You certainly should not say the population is significantly larger. A better way would be to find another reliable source, say a newspaper, book or paper, that does the comparison for you. The comparison with the Bay Area is even worse. You are using what looks like a different source from a different year to make the population comparisons. That is why this stuff should be left to other sources. AIRcorn  (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is your original definition of original research. Original research precludes verifiability by references; and verifiability is the Wikipedia standard. Readers do have brains and the ability to add, subtract, and deduce. The comparison with the SF Bay Area is also valid, because NYC's 2012 AND 2010 populations are noted in the section. Therefore, all bases are covered. Finally, this article contains over 400 references, and it would be hard to declare this to be an article dominated by original research. I do admit that the History subsections are weak in this respect, and these can be improved upon. But this is no reason to gut what someone else, not I, has recently and officially deemed to constitute a Good Article.

Castncoot ( talk) 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Castncoot here. Simple comparison of sourced population figures falls under routine calculations; it is not original research. oknazevad ( talk) 00:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It is still original research, although it can be acceptable I will admit. If it is to be used it should be presented better, removing significantly at least, if you want to describe the difference then use a number (significantly is too vague). It should be described as a note which says how this was reached. The Bay area should also be removed as if you are making comparisons then it needs to be from the same year. AIRcorn  (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

LA & Chicago make sense because they are #2 & #3 in population. I have made that explicit. Actually NYC is just short of being as big as the #2 + #3 + #4 (Houston). I removed SF metro as being somewhat arbitrary -- JimWae ( talk) 08:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a high-quality article in many respects, but the lead has far too many refs, which make it hard to read. What would people think about a concerted effort to reduce the number? Looie496 ( talk) 03:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the first thing to work on is the multiple refs for the same statement. Either combining the refs into one, or picking the most authoritative, depending on what's there & what's appropriate-- JimWae ( talk) 08:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to work on this, but not if people immediately start reverting. What I'm looking for is something in the nature of consensus that this would be a good thing to do. Looie496 ( talk) 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I support this course of action, especially JimWae's "picking the most authoritative" suggestion.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 22:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would object to removal of ALL the refs, however. Ledes don't need refs only when there is nothing to contest. We are not there yet - some people even contest population numbers (eg: The mayor objected to 2010 census numbers). Let's work on the multiple refs first.-- JimWae ( talk) 19:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all of the aforementioned, but I think we should not rid of any reliable references altogether. If not already present, they should be moved to the main body where appropriate. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit the New York Coty page Thewikil13r ( talk) 19:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done First of all, you must list what changes you would like make, so that we can make them for you. Secondly, you can also wait until you are autoconfirmed, so that you may update the article yourself. -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be several editors involved with helping promote this article back to GA, myself included, and from my experience this is best done as a community by updating / maintaining a to-do list. From what I've gathered, we've reached some sort of consensus to reduce the use of references in the lead. Linking to that discussion in your edit summary should help prevent reverts. Following the outlined procedure, I have updated the to-do list accordingly. Please add/mark tasks as needed. Sounds like this discussion is a no consensus. Shall we leave the discussed historical/boastful content as is? Thanks everyone! — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You've phrased a leading question, which is unfair. It's certainly better not to dilute, gut, and dumb down an article about perhaps the world's most complex city simply to obtain a ceremonial title, which would then lose any legitimacy. I believe the GA reviewers need to accept that this particular article will uniquely need the 60-plus refs by the end of the lead, which it has had ad eternum. Educate the reader with reliably sourced facts rather than pandering to reviewers. This already IS intrinsically a high quality article, as other editors have concurred. I would personally carry no sorrow if the official GA reviewers don't agree. Castncoot ( talk) 02:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

For Historic colonies in the box on the right it should say Province of New York, not colony. In fact the article it links to is called Province of New York. New York was never a colony while British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.95.175 ( talk) 18:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What should be included under Nicknames in the infobox of the New York City article. AIRcorn  (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Currently we have six nicknames for New York City; "The Big Apple", "Gotham", "The Center of the Universe", "The City That Never Sleeps", "The Capital of the World", and "Metropolis". Now I have no issues with "The Big Apple" and "The City That Never Sleeps", but the others appear either gratuitous or unlikely. I would be interested in outside opinions on what should be included in the city infobox under nicknames. Regards AIRcorn  (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Big Apple", "Gotham", and "The City That Never Sleeps" are the ones that I feel rise to the level of inclusion. I however would also add one more that's not on that list, "The Five Boroughs," which is certainly the nickname I hear more than others in actual conversation. I agree six is a bit gratuitous in the infobox, and other than Superman, I'm not sure where "Metropolis" comes from. Alternatively, many cities have an "Etymology" or "Names" section at the top, where the place's former names and nicknames can be presented in paragraph form.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Capital of the World" and "Center of the Universe" are well-known nicknames for New York City, and they are both reliably referenced. "Metropolis"and "Gotham" are similarly popular nicknames for NYC and have been referenced. "The Five Boroughs" is not so much a nickname as it is an actual technical term for the city, although it could be considered a quasi-nickname. As far as the idea of six nicknames being a gratuitous number in the infobox, that's contradicted by the six currently found in the Chicago article and the six currently found in the Toronto article, two city articles which I randomly chose to look at, so this doesn't hold water as an issue. So we're good here. Let's move on to the History section, if you could help. Castncoot ( talk) 23:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

First, the infobox does not need to be exhaustive in its coverage, and second, just because another article has six makes for a bad comparison. A better comparison, however, is looking to a featured article like Washington, D.C., to see how they dealt with this field. With that in mind, I've moved the nicknames to a subarticle at Nicknames of New York City (which is similar to D.C., Chicago, and others) and where we can explain each nickname and list others that wouldn't otherwise deserve inclusion.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree - best moved. Moxy ( talk) 16:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

'"Capital of the World" and "Center of the Universe" are well-known nicknames for New York City, and they are both reliably referenced.' Obviously... In America! -remind me, is this a global website or purely a parochial one? Basket _Feudalist 19:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Cut the nonsense. No one said that they are definitive, just that they are attested. Leave the bad faith accusations at the door, please. oknazevad ( talk) 19:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of speaking nonsense... lovely weather on a planet where that's bad faith? Make the move to Nevada, son. Basket _Feudalist 19:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone calls something a name does not make it a nickname, or at least not one that we should put in an encylcopedia. The current solution is better, but I think the new article is still using a bit too broad a definition of nickname. I like the idea of having an etymology section and mentioning some there and linking to the new article from it. A major problem I have with infoboxes is that context can't be provided. If nothing else some information on "The Big Apple" should be provided. AIRcorn  (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Or an infobox link to the nicknames article that goes into detail, imagine in link color See nicknames past and present. If we tangentially discuss Gotham City and its mainly Batman-entrenched use, which in itself is a fictitious city your intended section on etymology which is connected to actual history, not fantasy, would tend toward filler. That is not to say it wouldn't be the most academic approach, indeed one would then have three separate sections, of "pseudonyms" (the Five Boroughs, the Empire State Capital) like the Hexagon for France, "nicknames", and "genuine etymology" such as New Amsterdam. Thus I'd suggest Consensus is as is. Pseudonyms are for rapidly changing contemporary literary heavyweights, companies and journalists to liven up a debate or discourse not usually wikipedia. Nicknames are for a separate review of origin and use as is. History is for history as is. It looks like the solution has having arrived at thanks to all of the above contributors settling on where they can move this debate to. - Adam37 Talk 14:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

196.206.56.219 ( talk) 14:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done No request given — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a rather extensive discussion of the crime and murder rates, but there is nary a number (beyond an absolute number or few). What is the murder rate? Kdammers ( talk) 12:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone want to discuss the images here, and the backup that's going on? I moved images up using an old technique of placing them in tables, so that they could be near their topic, even when pushed by the infobox. Was there a specific problem with that? Even though that was reverted and the images returned to their long righthand stack, I think its a starting point for dealing with the image problems here. Beyond that, the first problem with the images is that, despite the hidden comment at the top of the article, many are still set to specific pixel sizes, and need to be changed. Second, none of the images have ALT text specified. I'd like to try to change that over the next day or so, and any assistance is appreciated.

We also have a backup because of unnecessary images. File:George Schlegel - George Degen - New York 1873.jpg is a false perspective drawing of Manhattan from 1874, but doesn't relate to any specific topic in the History section and has a large beige border that takes up about 20% of the image. I'd suggest it be moved to the top of the article History of New York City, where such a general historic image might be more appropriate. Having been on the article for a certain length of time is not a reason to include it, and is a fallacy from arguments to avoid. File:NYC1885-1.jpg is a black and white draftsman's map of New York streets circa 1885. What does this add? Especially right next to the same view in a modern satellite image? If we want a street map, perhaps we can just link to one that might be more recent and therefore, more accurate for our encyclopedia. There is a topographical map available on the commons, but why isn't the satellite image enough? I'm also not sure why File:NewYorkStreetScene-People.JPG was returned to the Demographics section. This blurry low-resolution photo of a street corner shows individuals of different races, currently with the caption "Polyethnic humanity pervades New York City", which to me is suggesting some sort of infestation. I find the whole thing disturbing. Anyone else have thoughts on image problems here?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually alright with your most recent rearrangement of the pictures. I actually also agree with your remark about the caption and will restore it to its original configuration if with slightly varying terminology, although the picture itself is fabulous and very educational to the reader ("worth a thousand words..."). The only exception is I personally believe that the Hurricane Sandy image should best be included as a part of the History section. I'm willing to try this out for a while, though, as the Climate section is also fitting. Castncoot ( talk) 04:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I also love the 1885 street map - you can also almost never have too much historical perspective. Castncoot ( talk) 05:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the questions we have to ask with each image we use, is what does it add to a section, and why this one verses another. So why a 1885 map? Why not 1861? Or 1918? If we just want a map with names for various bodies, maybe use OpenStreetMap to create a contemporary one? I guess I'm asking what's significant about 1885 to the Geography section, which otherwise doesn't discuss the 19th Century? If it gives historical perspective, maybe you can elaborate on how? Again, I think the satellite image does a wonderful job of conveying the geography of New York. Pretty much these same questions go for the 1873 perspective map and its host of poetic inaccuracies. And I don't want to be picky here, but " I like it" is also one of the arguments to avoid on Wikipedia.

With the "polyethnic" photo, I just have a hard time believing the the best photo available of a New York street is 454×357 with a horizontal motion blur. Why those 11.5 people? Why that street corner? There's a yellow cab in the foreground, but otherwise is there anything to tell that these are New Yorkers? Looking on Flickr for available images, I quickly found several with better resolution/clarity: [9], [10], [11], [12], or [13]. These might work for what you're trying to show, however I have to question the goal of featuring a photo of different ethnicities here as inherently problematic. Do these individuals represent any of the 800 linguistic groups the intro mentions? Are they actual denizens of the city or just visiting tourists? Why is there no Arab American or Orthodox Jew pictured, among the other major ethnicities missing? Or why not a gay pride image? So many questions that make me say we're better off without it.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick agreement, without reading your whole comment but the "polyethnic" photo is awful, motion blur, no real subject, bad framing, can we please find something better? CombatWombat42 ( talk) 17:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

1) First of all, Patrickneil, some great edits on your part, thank you!!! 2) Secondly, if you find a better picture that embodies NYC's polyethnicity, go for it!!! But until then, this is a pretty fabulously darn good one, with at least four or five general ethnoracial distinctions I can think of!!! One can describe everything in the text, and I've probably referenced as many statements as anyone else in this article, but come on, how boring is that? A picture is really worth a thousand words here. To be genuine, the motion blur is really not an issue - it's affecting the taxicab and not the people, and thereby adds a nice touch of reality on its own - it's more likely that a taxicab will be in a rush rather than just sitting there. Polyethnicity has nothing to do with religion or sexual orientation, by the way. The picture immediately conveys to the reader exactly what the caption states, and THAT is the point. 3) As far as the 1885 geographical picture, it really is riveting to show how little and/or how much has changed between 1885 and now (an in-your-face "then" and "now" comparison, very much like the city it's describing). Could you get an 1861 picture instead? Sure!!! Why not? It's just that this is what someone (not I) has posted, and obviously many have liked or at least accepted it, just as with the other images. Not everyone will like every image, you can't please all of the people all of the time - therefore, a good rationale should back it up, and I believe there is.

Castncoot ( talk) 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so Castncoot! I hope to finish the ALT text tonight, and maybe do some referencing in the next few days. With the photo, I'm going to suggest that polyethnicity might be more of an abstract concept that doesn't photograph well. We don't have any statistics to back it up, and it isn't mentioned or defined in the section. At first glace, I bet most readers assume it is a synonym for "multiethnic", which would be wrong. So my suggestion is to replace that with the gay pride image I linked, which features the Empire State in the background, and the caption "The New York metropolitan area is home to the largest self-identifying gay and bisexual community in the United States." We have two photos in the section related to ethnicity, and that would be an cited alternative that is specific to something it would be next to the article.

Moving on, I would like to try to diversify some of the other photo throughout the article. If you count them up, we have 35 photos, excluding maps and the infobox collage. Of those, 3 are in Queens, 2 are in the Bronx, 1 (a painting) is in Brooklyn, 0.5 of one is in Staten Island (the Verrazano Bridge), and 28 are in Manhattan or of its skyline. I'm not sure we're best representing the city with that ratio. Perhaps we can have the Brooklyn Museum instead of the Met under the "Entertainment and performing arts" section, or perhaps instead of the Empire State and Chrysler Building, which have a beautiful panorama right above, we could have a row of Brownstones for the "Architecture" section. Perhaps the "Cuisine" subsection is one that could, ahem, stomach an image from the "outer boroughs" without being too crowded. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great LGBT-pride link, photo, and caption, Patrick - I think including it would be vital in a city that may have up to a 15% LGBT personal representation and certainly a much higher representation of LGBT supporters. Likewise, I believe that NYC, more than any other in the United States, if not the world, is a sheer product of its kaleidoscopic demographics, and this section, more than any other, is where I feel strongly that we should actually be generous on imagery. I see no problem with including both.

Castncoot ( talk) 02:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I also like the Brooklyn Flea image and caption for now. Perhaps a Barclays Center image could be included at some point in time as well. As long as images are constructive and tell a worthwhile story and don't interfere with the layout, I don't see the need to put an artificially strict cap on the number. Castncoot ( talk) 02:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My idea here is to reduce stacking and sandwiching of text. When we have too many images in a section, they push down into other, unrelated sections, and when we have them on either side, they squeeze the text to the middle in a way that can make paragraphs disconnected and harder to read, and that's why we do need to reduce the number of images used in some sections, particularly bad images or ones that don't connect to and advance information presented in the text. The bad images are ones with illegible thumbnails, or without subjects, or that duplicate the subject of other images, and they should be removed or moved to other, more specific articles. I know you like some of these images, and there may be some personal attachment, but nothing here is a personal affront, it's just that Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Thanks for understanding!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

One thing other users could help out with is finding a new tourism photo. The image of Times Square there now is duplicated from the Infobox collage, and we really shouldn't have the same image in more than one place.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attachment? To what? I think that the Demographics section could use the Brooklyn Jewish image, as Jews comprise such a large demographic proportion of the City, and this was also a way to make the article less Manhattan-centric. An image demonstrating polyethnicity should be there as well, for the reasons I discussed above. Rethinking, I realized that the Little Italy image actually belongs in the History section rather than the Demographics section, especially given that Little Italy's Italian population has all but moved out of the neighborhood and is no longer a relevant demographic representative - it's therefore actually disingenuous and ridiculous to include it in the Demographics section, which deals with current demographics. I agreed with the gay pride image based upon the premise that all four images would be included (thereby eliminating any WP:UNDUE concern with regards to themes) and not expecting that one image would be wiped out. In other words, I believe it would be best to have two images conveying ethnicity, one representing religion, and one representing sexual orientation. This is an important section which can readily accommodate four images in the layout.

Castncoot ( talk) 20:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Orthodox image is totally fine, didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't. Looks good now. The Demographics section is tight in part because of the table of historic populations, and the "City compared to State & U.S.", which though minimized by default, has to be considered when adding more to the section.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 03:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

For me it is better to Move images up using an old technique of placing them in tables. Kelly0987 ( talk) 03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I just created New York pneumatic tube mail which I only learned about this afternoon and felt it absolutely deserved to have its own article! Currently only Pneumatic tube links to it. Could someone suggest different places which might be appropriate for inbound links? I would put it in the NYC article (or sub article) directly but it's such a heavily worked-over article I don't want to mess up carefully constructed paragraphs. Witty lama 12:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

-I have calculated the July average high (1981-2010) for NYC central Park using the NCDC Daily Summaries of Central Park weather stations :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USW00094728/detail

-And the July average high is 84.88666667 therefore the July average is 84.9°F not 84.1°F , 84.1°F is dubious. But the wikipedia NYC page moderator does not agree to change the dubious 84.1°F to real 84.9°F in New York "climate". All averages high in the NYC wikipedia weatherbox are wrong ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:D03E:17AE:BE10:24A ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR oknazevad ( talk) 21:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

While WP:NOR prevents us from making that change... it is interesting. I get the same result, 84.9. Famartin ( talk) 04:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, how could we change the weather stats ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:465:728E:1FF8:8614 ( talk) 16:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article contains a photo caption that says "Greenwich Village. New York City is home to the largest gay and bisexual community in the United States." The photo is actually of the Madison Square Park/Flatiron area, not Greenwich Village. You can see where the photo was taken on Google Maps Street View here: http://goo.gl/maps/MrA5X Simply switching the caption would still be a true statement, but Greenwich Village holds much more historical significance for the gay community, so perhaps a different photo, one from the Village, would be better.

HalseyHemingway ( talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I was unable to locate a reference anywhere in the body of the article that supported the claim that Greenwich Village is the "largest gay and bisexual community in the US," so per WP:UNSOURCED I removed it. It still depicts the Gay Pride March which is a notable event in the city, so I simply reworded it. Feel free to add thoughts on how to expand, or if you are able to find another suitable image. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

ficken a schleck ma blas me en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.82.102 ( talk) 14:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

this is in america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.234.217 ( talk) 11:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This is in correct since King Charles II of England it is Great Britain, he was Scottish not English so it would be even more correct to say of Scotland rather England! Acidc44 ( talk) 23:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

At the time the crowns of England and Scotland were held in personal union, but had not been legally merged, that is there were two separate offices held by one person at the same time. So " Charles II of England" is correct. He was also Charles II of Scotland at the same time, but the takeover of New Amsterdam and its renaming into New York were done as part of his role as King of England. The title "King of Great Britain" didn't exist yet. So you're wrong. (PS, it's the Roman numeral II, not 11.) oknazevad ( talk) 05:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)