This is an archive of past discussions about New York City. 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.
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
This article, as it stands, does not mention the coronavirus. A recent attempt to introduce material on this subject by Tobby72: [1] was reverted by Castncoot: [2]. Then, my introduction of a link to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York City was reverted by Castncoot:[3]. I note that New York (state) has a section on the coronavirus. Should this article on NYC either have a brief mention of the issue or have a link to a wikipedia article on the issue? One might think that some interested readers will come to the article on NYC looking for something on the virus. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Good luck with that. They treat this article like their personal fiefdom, and will not allow any changes to it unless there's a significant fight over it, and will basically revert any change, no matter what it is, unless a significant effort is made to force them to accept it via an overly bureaucratic community process that most editors will just give up, making their version a fait accompli by virtue of the fact that they're more willing to just keep on reverting to force their version through. This is standard operating procedure at this article, and you'll basically get nothing useful done in expanding or fixing this article unless you get the entire Wikipedia on board and spend weeks going through whatever insane hoops they'll make you jump through before they'll begrudgingly accept your change. Vaya con dios. --Jayron3218:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Well great. This city of 8 million is an epicenter for the virus right now. This needs to be included no matter what any one editor thinks. ɱ(talk)18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
No need for tension! 5000 people have died in New York in the last week, with almost all of those from COVID. That is more deaths than any other event of the past 100 years in the "modern history" section. The 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York City has 100k views in the past 30 days. That traffic is not evidence of long term interest, but it is unprecedented, and I think it demonstrates that people right now expect to find a link between the main NYC article and the pandemic article. Blue Rasberry (talk)19:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't tolerate crappy and sloppy editing, plain and simple. If you're going to edit, please put a little bit of thought as to what you want to say and express it properly, rather than simply spilling the latest thought in your brain onto paper. Some housekeeping, first- Jayron32: how do know and/or assume what gender I identify with? And you're supposed to be an administrator. Shame on you. Now, on to Attic Salt and Ɱ - unfortunately, most of both of your edits are - gosh, I really don't know what to say. When I see an edit by User:Station1 or User:Epicgenius for example, I believe the community has strong confidence that those edits are going to be solid. As a matter of fact, Attic Salt and Ɱ, are you both conveniently denying that this intermediate edit occurred? If you're going to discuss a currently and continuously evolving issue where numbers are increasing quasi exponentially by the day, does it really make sense to quote a precise number, fraction, or date? Just to have to update it the next day and the next day and the next day? Or to give it its own WP:UNDUE see-also entry where it sticks out like a sore thumb? No. So at least I've rephrased it in such a way that the wording itself embodies some degree of stability, even while the content that the wording is describing is as volatile as it is. Castncoot (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Is it this revision? If so, it's certainly not refined, but on Wikipedia unless the material is hard to understand or not properly cited (assuming it's not plagiarized, of course), it's better to just revise what's put down. This is a general purpose encyclopedia for the purpose of the general public, and that means allowing edits from people of all walks of life and allowing un-refined edits (which can be refined later). If something's a featured article I can understand stricter quality control, but this isn't. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for attacking my efforts. I simply wanted to restore mention, with the aim to nitpick the details of it later. As I said - it needs to be included. The specifics can be hammered out now. And yes, I appreciate your latest changes. ɱ(talk)02:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I've read through a good amount of the article, and I have a few ideas on how to improve it. There has doubtless been some discussion on some of these issues, but I haven't had the chance to look through the talk page and its archives. I've already seen one contentious conversation about the word "megacity" that I will reference below.
The second paragraph of the British Colony subsection reads telegraphically, listing several facts briefly. A better alternative would be to fully develop these topics within this subsection, or better yet, to leave these facts out totally and make sure that they are well developed in their main article.
The final paragraph of Nineteenth Century seems to be talking about the draft riots. If so, it probably should not have its own paragraph.
The Modern history subsection talks briefly about the drop in crime, but ought to also briefly introduce the nuance that is present in the later Police and law enforcement subsection. As it stands now, this subsection contradicts the Police and law enforcement subsection with regard to crime.
This subsection also seems like an inappropriate place to fully consider the debate on whether transgender people contributed to the Stonewall riots, since it's such a granular issue relative to this article's topic and the History section. Similar to my issue with the British Colony subsection above, I think this issue should either be addressed briefly and more elegantly, or simply skipped, with care taken to address this issue on a main article and in the Sexual orientation and gender identity subsection.
Population density: so, is New York the densest city in the US, or is it not? The issue lies with the fact that there is a municipality in New Jersey that is denser than New York City. Because this municipality exists, any "densest city in the US" sentence should be used only with a qualifier. Such sentences appear at least twice in the article. It looks like I misread the sentence.
Public health: I don't think the sentence about the cigarette ban in pharmacies belongs in that paragraph. To the extent that other public health initiatives belong in this subsection, it should be placed with them and not in the paragraph about hospitals (indeed, the whole subsection is about hospitals).
Firefighting: Mention of the subway should connect more explicitly to some potential fire hazard. Just mentioning "electrified track" is not enough. I've edited this, but feel free to add more improvements
Pace: This two-sentence subsection should be dropped as long as the material exists in some other article about New York City. It's also silly that half of this subsection (so, one sentence) is a characterization by 19th century poet Walt Whitman.
Generally, as earlier peer reviews have found, there is a lot of "capital of," "center of," "most," and "diverse," in this article. Many of these superlatives are warranted, but many are unwarranted. The opening line of the Culture and contemporary life subsection qualifies a superlative by attributing it to Baruch College:
New York City has been described as the cultural capital of the world by New York's Baruch College.
That this is a New York City university's opinion of the cultural prominence of New York City makes it a rhetorically weak opening sentence. More care should be taken to come to a consensus that New York City is singularly significant or superlative before saying generally that it is the "capital of" anything. An assertion that "so-and-so has said that New York is the capital of..." should be more effective than the example above.
Finally, there seems to have been a debate on the use of the word "megacity." I think that the word is too arbitrarily defined and should not be given much weight in the article. Moreover, what definition does exist of "megacity" tends to include the whole metropolitan area. In this case, it seems inappropriate to label New York City itself as a megacity.
This is my first peer review. Feedback is appreciated!
I am only planning on tackling a few of these issues, so feel free to work on any of them if you are so moved.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Leipzig Haubtbahnhof has 19 platforms , and is usually considered to be the largest one. On a map of German speaking Europe (Germany and Austria-Hungary) 1904-1918 may possibly explain why. Leipzig was located right in the centre of German speaking areas by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.83.65 (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Should we change the header of the infobox from just "New York" to "New York City, New York" or "New York, New York" to be consistent with articles for other American cities (city, state)? DaveTheBrave❯❯❯Talk23:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Some more so than others. Boston was “Town” as far up as the Maritimes and as far down as Providence once. SF is simply “The City” more than New York, though. Qwirkle (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I just think some other recent changes aren't as they should be; will adjust/comment more when home. ɱ(talk)20:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: - I think your removal of "The City" was fine, just I don't understand why {{pp}} was moved, the caption and coords were better before, the abbreviation was more consistent with other articles, 'eighth' is fine spelled-out, etc. Bundling this many changes in one edit also does not make it easier to revert or discuss. ɱ(talk)21:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
James II as a slaver
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is extremely important context, as it is who New York is named in honour of.
I used references accepted elsewhere and linked to the Royal African Company article.
Considering the current climate it is important to acknowledge such contexts rather than hide them.
"James II is notable for leading the Royal Africa Company, which shipped more African slaves to the Americas than any other institution in the history of the Atlantic slave trade."
---Jesus College Cambridge Legacy of Slavery Working Party (25 November 2019). Jesus College Legacy of Slavery Working Party Interim Report (July-October 2019) (Report). pp. 9–10.
Hello fellow New Yorker! I know what you're saying, it would be ideal if everyone could edit as easily as possible. The problem is a ton of people are really immature and screw it up for everyone else by vandalizing the page constantly. So the way it is now is you can only edit if you make an account at least four days old and make at least ten edits on smaller pages. So I would personally suggest making an account and making some edits on smaller articles first. In any case, that way you can get more experience with stuff like adding references and pictures. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
two boxes pertaining to the climate of New York City and its metropolitan area in general is quite redundant – Time series representations are not the same as fixed 12 month representations ({{Weather box}} and {{Climate chart}}). If {{Climate chart}} were present, you would have a valid point, because it simply presents three fields within {{Weather box}} in graphical format. See Boston#Climate, which has a conceptually similar graph comparing different Boston winters by snowfall accumulated to date, within season.
If such information desires to be expanded upon, it should be placed in the Climate of New York City article, which it is. Information here however is a mere summary Which is why the time series graph is a graph and not a wall of text text or a colossal list. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The time series plot of temperature is too big. It sits like a brick in the middle of the article. If we really need a plot of temperture (and I'm not sure we do), then an average temperature plot like we have in the Boston article is enough. Attic Salt (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem with {{Climate chart}}, anybody can simply plug the normal numbers (three fields × 12 months = 36 numbers) in an Excel spreadsheet and create the graph themselves (you can't do that with {{Graph:Weather monthly history}}, if one even knew where to compile all the numbers to begin with). Its utility is better in contexts where the full {{Weather box}} would be overkill, e.g. humid subtropical climate. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@TheLionHasSeen: I suggest a WP:RFC be opened, as the time series graph had stood for more than 40 months, and the "opinion tally" here is a weak 2-versus-1. Despite the fact this page has over 2,000 watchers, this talk is not heavily trafficked, so the RfC can ensure broader opinion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Picture of Midtown Manhattan v. Yankee Stadium at the top?
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. So Nkon21 reverted my edit which replaced the Midtown Manhattan picture in the lead with a picture of Yankee Stadium. So I wanted to explain my reasons for it. 1) The Midtown Manhattan skyline can easily be combined with the view of Central Park, for example with [this photo] or something similar. 2) The Bronx doesn't have a picture right now, and I feel like all four major boroughs (sorry Staten Islanders) should have a photo. In any case Yankee Stadium is very famous, and even if it could be put under sports doesn't mean it can't also be in the lead. I mean the Unisphere is also shown in the parks section, that doesn't mean it can't be in the lead.
I still think the Midtown Manhattan image is necessary as it is by far one of the most iconic skylines in the world. The example picture you gave unfortunately does not capture the skyline adequately, as it does not show the Empire State Building or any of the Billionaire's Row towers, which are all easily recognized and familiar by most of the population. The thing with stadiums, as I brought up in past discussions I had involving montages, is that they are simply just stadiums. Every major city in the world has stadiums, so what part of it necessarily makes it stand out from the rest? It just lacks the easily identifiable character that the rest of the landmarks in the montage have. I don't see any reason why it can't just be shown in the Sports section, where the other stadiums are also featured. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Not much of a fan of that picture of midtown (two indistinct) if there was something that has the Empire State and Chysler in closer that would be good but I do think midtown is better than the stadium for the reasons above, however if the Bronx is wanted I would go with Grand Concourse Grand Concourse or Bronx Zoo Bronx Zoo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Politics
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This statement was true as of 2006 and 2008 but not thereafter: "New York is the most important source of political fundraising in the United States, as four of the top five ZIP Codes in the nation for political contributions are in Manhattan." Source is cited in the note to the next sentence in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.59.113 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
"New York" vs. "New York City"
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I know that the name of the page has been debated and decided already. I'm not arguing a change of the name of the article. However, the opening statement is just wrong. The name of the city is not and has never been "New York City." The article currently begins: "New York City (NYC), often called simply New York,…" However, it would be more correct to say: "The City of New York, commonly known as 'New York City (NYC)',…" It is a common misperception that it is like "Kansas City" or "Texas City," etc. I have lived in New York, both in the city proper and in the suburbs, for virtually my entire life, and I've only ever heard out-of-towners refer to it as "New York City." To us, it's always "New York" or usually "The City," although we often use NYC as an abbreviation. In fact, there are only six references to "City of New York" in the entire article, none of which even mention that this is the actual official name of the city! That tells me this is a very poorly written article to begin with! You would think that an article about the largest and most important city in the United States and one of the major cities of the world would at least be somewhat accurate in simply _naming_ the place in question! Just a suggestion: perhaps Wikipedia should make more decisions based on _facts_ that are objectively determined rather than leaving the decision as to what constitutes a "fact" up to democracy.
Except that "City of New York" is not the "actual official name" of the city. From 1898-1938 the explicitly stated official name of the city, according to the city charter was "The City of New York", with both the T and C capitalized. Under the new charter in 1938, there no longer was any legally defined "official" name. If you go by the New York State Constitution or the 1938 charter, the city is referred to as just "New York". When the addition of "city" is necessary to distinguish from the state, it is normally not capitalized in laws. So the closest thing to an official name for the city is "New York", but government documents often also use "New York City", "City of New York" or "NYC". Since "New York" is probably also the most common name for the city, the best opening sentence would be "New York, often known as New York City (NYC) ...", but the current sentence is not terrible. Station1 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
It's interesting to know that there's no official name for the city. So theoretically speaking, would laws and other formal documents - those that require specifically defined or legally official terminology - have to define the city's name in an ad hoc basis if the city needs to be mentioned because there's no official name to go with? Excusememoi (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Some laws use a formulation like "any city with a population greater than one million", which of course could only be New York. But there are plenty of other laws, besides the Constitution, that refer to "the city of New York" or "New York city". That's why I would say "New York" is the official name. It's just that there's no law of which I'm aware that says something like "the official name of the city shall be ..." It's never caused any problem, as far as I know. Station1 (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
"New York" alone does appear to be the actual name of the city (settlement), unlike Oklahoma City where the AP Stylebook and Google Maps (both American based) use "City" they don't for New York which suggests it isn't an integral part of the name. Obviously Wikipedia has a preference for common names and natural disambiguation so the current title is preferable to New York, New York or New York (city) maybe we should state that "New York" alone is the name of the city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
"New York" is the name of the city, and in certain formal legal documents a Manhattan address is styled "In the City, County and State of New York." Though the municipal government makes use of "The City of New York"; "New York"; "New York City" and "NYC" throughout its own publications [1], the municipal government styles itself the "City of New York" in most formal contexts, including when it brings litigation [2], or when it claims copyrights [3]. Because this distinguishes it from the State (and to a lesser degree County) of the same name, that is probably how the article should lead (i.e. "The City of New York, also known as New York, New York City, and NYC ..." Treko (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I gather that both the city of New Amsterdam and the colony of New Holland received their present name as "New York" after the English conquered them from the Dutch in 1664. What I'm asking myself: Was the city named after the colony or the colony after the city? Or were they both renamed simultaneously? --Oudeístalk00:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Times Square image(s)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Re this edit, Nkon21, the image you added already appears in the article, and we shouldn't use the same image twice. Could you restore the previous one or find a different Times Square image? {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to New York City has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Following ‘The Treaty of Breda’ and the reference to Suriname, mention should be made that the island of Run in the then Dutch East Indies was also part of the settlement terms in which the English retained possession of Manhattan. The Wikipedia entry for Run (island) supports this suggested edit. KitHamilton (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to New York City has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021: In the "New York City" article, line 4 of the paragraph on English colonial rule in the History section: James Duke of York is identified as "the future James II and IV": this ought to be "the future James II and VII" (as per Wikipedia article on him). 174.3.209.17 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to New York City has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It is stated under "Geography" on this article that a point in Staten Island is the "highest point on the eastern seaboard south of Maine" at ~400 ft. That is simply not true. Various points throughout the Green Mountains in Vermont, Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, etc. are higher than 400 ft. 2604:2D80:D60A:D800:1DBF:58C7:C245:8EE3 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done. There are plenty of mountains in the Appalachian chain that are thousands of feet tall, but they are not on the seaboard. The statement in the article is sourced. Station1 (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Extra whitespace after the "Climate" subsection
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Greetings and felicitations. I'm seeing what seems to be an extra carriage return in both mobile and desktop modes after "Climate" and before "Parks", but the table/image is noted as "Edit on Commons" and I can't find it there. Help, please? And is anyone else seeing that extra space? —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A screenshot from this afternoon's press conference [4] shows New York has a 2020 population of 8,804,190. Once I find the correct file, I will update the infobox and header, and hopefully the borough template. (Quite a miss by the estimates.) Dralwik|Have a Chat17:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
It is quite a miss! I was thinking of updating the numbers for another municipality. Is there anywhere where people are doing a concerted effort to add 2020 census population counts for counties and municipalities, now that that data has been released? I have access to some of the data but it's not in a reader friendly format. Once more user-friendly sources come out, perhaps those are the ones that can be cited. Flejern (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
How many more citations can we clear from the lead?
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Personally I think some representation of New York's educational establishments and research is needed up there, and the Coney Island image feels a little out of place next to Central Park and the Statue of Liberty. I think the Butler Library would be a good replacement (particularly because of its proportions), and I don't think it would be too controversial a change (if it managed to stay up there for a whole two days). If anyone has any other ideas for what could possibly represent that (maybe some other university? IMO Columbia is probably the most iconic. NYU is too, but I don't know if there are any suitable photos to use given its lack of monumental architecture. City College has some pretty good architecture but I don't think it's well known enough to warrant a photo in the infobox.) I'm all ears.
As for the second change, I don't have any strong feelings about it but I'm partial towards keeping the picture of Times Square. I like the color and the atmosphere it has, and I think it helps to add to the idea of New York as a center for commerce/tourism/blah and to portray its night life. On the other hand, Grand Central is an iconic landmark of the city and we might be remiss to not include it. Josefaught (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I feel it would be better to leave the Times Square image above, forgoing this new addition; on the other hand, if no consensus is reached to have this new image remain, I am still content. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather Times Square in the infobox than Grand Central, but could take Grand Central in place of Coney Island or the Butler Library. To be clear, there's never going to be enough room to highlight everything that could be up there, so I don't think it's a slight to education if Columbia University isn't in the the montage. I'll say the value of Coney Island, is to try to keep something from the "outer boroughs" in this spot. Manhattan has a tendency to hog these spotlights (and the Brooklyn Bridge is still not exactly in Brooklyn). What I would say, is that the Central Park shot doesn't read well at that resolution/crop, so perhaps that's available to be swapped.-- Patrick, oѺ∞02:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Seconded, education is already fairly represented in its respective section in the article; no need for it to be featured in the montage when there are many more recognizable landmarks found within the city. As with representation, I'd say two images from outside Manhattan would be good enough as it is apparent that most of what NYC is known for is in Manhattan. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk17:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we put in a better image than the Coney Island image? I think something else representing Brooklyn would work, but the image makes everything look cluttered. Maybe something showing off the architecture of the borough like brownstones or Grand Army Plaza's arch. Youvejustbeenjammed0928 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
2 cents: Let's begin, one shot from each borough, and then fill in the rest. It is not a travel brouchure, its purpose is encyclopedic representation of the entire topic, NYC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind the midtown shot, but I have a hard time telling what the Coney Island image even is. It looks like it's just a picture of housing projects by the water, except when you squint, then you can kind of make out that the wonder wheel is in the picture. Youvejustbeenjammed0928 (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that this page has multiple images of Times Square (in the cover images, under "Tourism", and under "Media and Entertainment") and they're all fairly similar, while this page only has one image of Grand Central and it's of the exterior. If we replace the image of Times Square with an image of the interior of GCT with people in motion in the cover images, that could help make the collage remain colorful and atmospheric, while retaining the sense of NYC being a center of commerce, tourism, etc and showing off more of GCT. Youvejustbeenjammed0928 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Common name
Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
@Dhtwiki: Regarding your recent revert: indeed. That's not what the edit was meant to fix, however: "often simply called New York" makes it seem like "New York City" is the official name, which is usually reduced to "New York" for colloquial purposes, which is exactly the opposite of the actual situation. New York is the official short name of the city, while it is commonly referred to as New York City in order to distinguish it from the state. This is the same pattern as Bill Gates and even New York (state), for example. The common name / article title doesn't have to be the first phrase of the lead sentence verbatim. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay but just to pull three random examples look at Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Buenos Aires. All start with the name that's in the title and then say the official name. I think keeping the way it was is really fine, I mean New York City might not be "technically" official but it's what you're going to see in the vast majority of situations whether casual or from its own government so it makes sense to start with that I think. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay I just realized I wasn't responding to what you were really saying, sorry about that. What if we just put "New York City, officially the City of New York and often known simply as New York"? I guess it's a little clunky but it is following the format of Las Vegas.The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
It's usual to have the article title, and likely the more usual name per WP:COMMONNAME, restated early in the lead, as it now reads:
New York City (NYC), often simply called New York...
Your version:
The City of New York, often called New York City (NYC) or simply New York...
This has been discussed many times in the past, most recently at Talk:New_York_City/Archive_19#"New_York"_vs._"New_York_City". The city has no explicitly "official" name. It is called "New York" in the state constitution, in the 1938 city charter and most laws. That is also the most common name worldwide, although "New York City" is also extremely common, especially when needed to avoid confusion with the state. The article's title is "New York City" as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from New York (state); otherwise it would be at New York. - Station1 (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's at issue here. The issue is that the phrasing makes it seem like "New York" is a simplification of "New York City" when it is not. Getsnoopy (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you, as well as with your original comment. I was responding to the assertion that "City of New York" is somehow the official name. The name of the city is New York. The best possible opening would be "New York, often referred to as New York City...". Station1 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dhtwiki: Not unusual at all. The article United States does exactly this: official name first, then the common name (which is also the article title). This is documented at WP:OTHERNAMES, where it says that the article title and the names in the first sentence do not always match. Even then, that's not the case here; they do match, it's just that they're a few words later. This is totally standard form on WP. Getsnoopy (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
My saying that it was "usual" to restate the title wasn't meant to say that it was rarely done otherwise. Calling the "United States" the "United States of America" in that article's lead is something established, where you were making a change without, I think, good reason. Also, what percentage of Americans are apt to offhandedly say the longer form of their country name as opposed to New Yorkers using the long form you gave? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
A further point on the name: The three word form should be "New York city" with a lowercase C because "city" is not part of the proper name. Presenting as "New York City" declares that the official name has three words when it does not. Same as with "Washington state". The same applies to the mistyped "New York State" -- the name of the state is "New York", not "New York State", ergo it should be "New York state". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.130.28 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Might one inquire what "No, just no" is supposed to mean in lieu of argument? Are we gainsaying how English orthography works with proper nouns?
Take the case of, say, Kansas City (either one). "City" is part of the name, therefore gets a capital letter. However the term "Kansas city" would mean some generic unspecified city in Kansas. Olathe is a Kansas city but so is Topeka. And you can't drop the second word and call the city simply "Kansas" because then you're referring to a state. With New York there is no "City" in the name, ergo while we may append a common noun to it, as we can with any city, we cannot call it "New York City" because that entity does not exist. You can append the common noun city to distinguish from the state of the same name, but there is no City (proper noun) in the name, as there is with Kansas City, Michigan City, Salt Lake City et al. Given the structure of English orthography, what's the "no just no" here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.130.28 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Because nobody but nobody ever writes "New York city". Truthfully, English orthography has no hard and fast rules regarding what must not be capitalised; Wikipedia's hardline proscriptivism over capitals is by no means a universal standard out in the real world. But even on Wikipedia, common conventions take precedent over any prescriptive/proscriptive rules we've put in place. The "City" in "New York City" is capitalised. Because it just is. Also, in American English at least, the word "city" as a general descriptor appended after the name of the city isn't something that is done; so "city of New York" would be fine, but not "New York city". Also, keep in mind that unofficial/colloquial names can still be proper nouns. "Proper" here doesn't mean that only official names are proper nouns... 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:56:E639:97D:1433 (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to New York City has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It's already mentioned in the infobox as one of the city's nicknames, along side "The Big Apple" and "The City they Never Sleeps". oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Etymology of New York City
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Should we create a "Etymology of New York City" Article? The following sources provide more knowledge than already available as well as the already listed sources:[1][2][3][4]Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can we put "City of New York" underneath the sections where it says "New York" and "City" at the top of the article? Many other city articles such as Philadelphia (City of Philadelphia) and Tokyo (Tokyo Metropolis) have their official and long-form name underneath their city type designation, and since City of New York is not used anywhere in the opening paragraph, and only used a handful times elsewhere in the article, it seems like a logical place to put it. The official government website of NYC also uses the name City of New York: https://www1.nyc.gov/User:Youvejustbeenjammed0928 (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The list currently reads "100xx–104xx, 11004–05, 111xx–114xx, 116xx". That indicates all Zip codes beginning with 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114 and 116 serve NYC, even if not all possible 5-digit combinations within each series are used. If we were to change 100xx to 10001, we would also logically have to change 101, 104, 111, 116 etc, since none of those end in 00 either. Station1 (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Chicago and Philadelphia are similar to New York. The other way to do it would be a long list like at Miami, but I think this is better. Station1 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
City of New York
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Would it be appropriate for the first line to be "The City of New York, also known as New York City to distinguish it from the State...", as this would match the charter? –Zfish118⋉talk17:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Seems weird to have it there in the infobox in equal footing with JFK and LaGuardia, which both sit clearly in Queens. If we’re being literal in the infobox, then Newark Airport shouldn’t be there. If we’re representing the broader area or concept of NYC in the infobox, there should at least be an explanatory footnote. Thoughts? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
While I see your point, I'll note that other city infoboxes also list international airports which are outside the city limits. This is probably best discussed at a different talk page, maybe WT:CITY? 162 etc. (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to New York City has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can we change the line: "New York, often called New York City (NYC), is the most populous city of both the State of New York and the United States" to "New York, often called New York City (NYC), is a city in the State of New York and the most populous city of the United States" ? We already know it's the most populous city in the State of New York. 70.71.87.75 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
How do "we already know" that? An encyclopedia exists to educate its readers. I see no benefit to making this less specific. 162 etc. (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I think they are saying that if NYC is the most populous city in the United States, it must logically also be the most populous in NYS, so the sentence is redundant. I tend to agree. It's also partially redundant with the 3rd sentence. The NYS bit was only added a couple of weeks ago, so I'll restore to the recent stable version of June 2, which is much more well written. Station1 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why is Architecture sub-section under Geography section? Shouldn't Architecture be under Culture and contemporary life section, where, I really believe, belongs!?--౪ Santa ౪99°01:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
A while ago, I changed the sentence "New York City has been described as the cultural, financial, and media capital of the world, and is a significant influence [...]" to "New York City has been described as a major cultural, financial, and media center, significantly influencing [...]" beliving the second version to be more objective. One user even thanked me for that but later my edit was reverted several times by another user, who did not provide a sensible explanation for his action. NYC is already described by the term "capital of the world" just about two sentences after the contentious one. I think one mention is enough, since there is no technical capital of the world, and the repetition feels unnecessary and clunky. Furthermore, arguably, cities like London may also deserve the spot, and there is a whole article explaining why NYC, London, and others could be considered the world's capital (Caput Mundi). The sentence itself also makes little sense to me. A capital city is a capital city, there are no official media or financial capitals, and since these terms are rather figurative, maybe they should not be in a knowledge source trying to be as objective as possible. Finally, to my mind, the user revering my edits is biased and emphasizes the term "Capital of the world" to prove NYC is superior for some reason. I am writing this section to hear other opinions, maybe of more experienced users. So, am I right or wrong? Szymioza (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I must absolutely agree, there is nothing to add to the argumentation. I think I was even the user who thanked you.
The current wording seems very exaggerated and tends to ridicule, or at least unprofessionalize, Wikipedia's description of NYC as an influential world city by engaging in nonsensical neologism.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I also agree. To say some unnamed people metaphorically call NY the capital of the world, when there is no such thing in fact, brings down the encyclopedic tone. The only objectively factual statement is that NY was the capital of the U.S. for a short time. Station1 (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
According to Caput Mundi, linked in the lede of New York City, not only is New York sometimes described as the capital of the world, but so are Paris, London, Rome, and Washington DC. Seems kind of silly to elevate such a description to the lede of this article. More generally, the heavy use of superlative descriptions, largest this, greatest that, makes the article seem like an advertisement. The word "largest" appears 130 times in the article. Mrs. January (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Photo montage captions
Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
I have edited the photo montage in the infobox to put the captions right under each image to improve the readability. However, it has been reverted shortly after. It is obvious to me that putting the captions right below is way easier to read than the previous way of putting all the captions in one place under all the images with the reading instruction like from top, left to right, or from top-left clockwise in other articles. I'd like others' inputs on this change. Do you agree with this change? Xeror (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
14 images in the lead is a scrolling nightmare in mobile view (detering readers from reading more than the one opening paragraph)[5] -There is also text sandwich in a frew places and images causing whole article to side scroll. Article need some real help when it comes to image spam.....this has come up a few times to no real avail.Moxy-
The number of images is not what we are discussing here. We are talking about the caption placements of the photo montage. I checked the current article on my phone (iOS) and there is no issue. It looks the same as the desktop view. Xeror (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Should try what most readers see [6]. Accessibility should be a main concern of an article of this nature. It's to bad that the article is under the accessibility problem category. Moxy-00:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
There are no images in the lead. The infobox is not part of the lead. And on mobile view appears before the lead entirely, creating no accessibility issues. I don't know what you're looking at, but it's not an issue for either the mobile or desktop view when standard text size is in use. oknazevad (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the lead is just the introductory text. The infobox is a meta element. And its placement immediately after the first paragraph of the introduction on the mobile layout is done to make it easier for those using the infobox for its intended purpose – to provide a easily viewed quick reference of key facts and figures. That's standard for every article in mobile view. It seems to me that your issue is with the design of the mobile website, not this article in particular. oknazevad (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Was involved with why it is the way it is.......we put the infobox after the first paragraph for accessibility reasons which are being basically negated here because of a mass amount of imagery in the lead. Basics accessibility is a problem in the article mass amount of overage imagery in the lead.....text sandwich in sections and huge images causing side scroll. Looking to retain readers fix these accessibility problems..... pretty basic stuff that's why we have an MOS about it. Moxy-02:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes the montage has way too many images, 10 is just ridiculous in my opinion. I tried to trim it down but another user reverted it. I think the first 6 images is enough and should be the max length. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk03:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Once again, the number of images is not what we're trying to discuss here. I did not change the number of images (they remained the same when I edited it) but only the placement of the captions. The number of images can definitely be adjusted.
As for the scroll problem, I cannot reproduce the problem you have. Can anyone else confirm there is such problem on their phone? You may also want to post a screenshot of what the problem looks like on your device. Xeror (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I can see trimming the number of images in the infobox. Someone took advantage of the new captioning format to add a bunch of images. That was unneeded. I've always thought it makes sense to have one image for each borough. There's a certain poeticness about that.
That said, I don't see the sandwiching issue on either view . Also, please don't write like you're Rorschach. It just looks bad and is needlessly difficult to parse. oknazevad (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Following these three largest religious groups in New York City are Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and a variety of other religions, as well as atheism. In 2014, 24% of New Yorkers identified with no organized religious affiliation; a little over 3% of New Yorkers were atheist. Moxy-19:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of referenced material
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've again replaced the defintion of the "NewYorkSafeHaven" reference, which supported the still-current claim of New York City as an investment safe-haven. Maybe there is some dispute over this claim, but I don't think deleting the definition of the reference that is used elsewhere in the article, thereby creating other unreferenced passages, is constructive. If there is some dispute over NYC being a safe-haven for investors, I think we should discuss that issue here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Your current version is just fine. It’s the previously changed lede that had just stuck out like a sore thumb to me. As far as the safe haven content, I don’t believe there has ever been a dispute about that, and if anything, including the soaring US dollar nowadays, it’s in fact likely more true now than ever. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Then I don't understand why my change was reverted. I restored the reference, and also reveted the changes to the lede paragraph. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion
This article contain 122,048 readable characters (XTools), 19,389 words, took 10 seconds to load using VisualEditor, took between 2 to 3 hours to read in its entirety (100 to 160 wpm), and even crash in older mobile browsers. This is not acceptable. Per our article size guidelines, we should shorten it to at the very least, 75 kB. What sections/paragraphs should we yank out first? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Many articles are longer than this, and this is nowhere near the maximum of somewhere around 1,300 kB. You are being facetious, I’m sure about 75kB. I have not experienced significant delays loading this page. An article cannot be gutted to satisfy older mobile browsers which may be on their way out anyway. Most city articles are long, and New York is simply much more complex than others. Castncoot (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Big subjects require big articles. And NYC is a big subject. We already have a plethora of daughter articles covering all sorts of details. This article is already trimmed to the minimum needed to still be complete. Who cares if it takes a while to read? (Two hours? Serially doubt that unless someone is a poor reader). This is a nothing burger complaint. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I want you to not back apart the article with no consensus. You can disagree all you want, but you can't unilaterally decide what belongs in the article about one of the most important cities in the world. And if you have a problem with me calling it such, then you clearly have a point to prove. oknazevad (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: Nobody’s asking you not to lengthen those city pages as may be notable. A point as silly as the one you’ve made requires no further acknowledgment on this page. In fact, maybe you should indeed go about improving those articles as you see fit. Castncoot (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments5 people in discussion
The recent edit to the introductory sentence of this article, changing the name of the city from New York City to New York was made with reference in the edit as being reflective of talk page consensus. I've reviewed discussion on that recently and from several years ago and see no such consensus. Additionally, if the name of the city is to be changed from New York City to New York then the page also should be changed from New York City to New York to reflect that. But it should not be changed. It is New York City, as many observed in the discussion on page 2 of the talk page and a prior discussion from years ago that resulted in no consensus to change the city name. I am reverting it to New York City and propose a discussion here, unless I am completely missing something and there was a discussion that reached consensus (but I do not see that). Keystone18 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The version currently on the article is factually incorrect. The official name is not "The City of New York". That phrasing is sometimes used by the city government when referring to itself, but the city charter does not use the capital letter. The city's official name is simply "New York". The current phrasing also renders the footnote illogically phrased and placed. I think Station1's phrasing, which is consistent with prior discussions (I just went back and looked at a bunch of them) and the facts, is better. And no, using that phrasing does net require any change to the title of the article at all; giving the formal name followed by the common name that is the article title is pretty standard practice where the two don't match. oknazevad (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The name of the city charter, which I looked up and referenced, is: "New York City Charter". Welcome thoughts and not trying to be tyrannical about this, but it sure says something that we cannot apparently agree on the name of the most famous city in the world. Keystone18 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
It's called the "New York City Charter" (just a headline, btw, not a part of the charter) because it's the "City Charter" for "New York". If you look at the charter itself, it starts with "The city of New York as now existing...", not "The City of New York" or "The city of New York City". There's nothing in the new charter about an official name (unlike the 1898 charter), and "City of New York" is no more official than "New York", "New York City" or "NYC", all of which are used. Station1 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Response and discussion
The charter (which, by the way, is not the final word on this) includes 67 references to the city as New York City. The heading page, in large font, states: New York City Charter. Multiple city departments are labeled New York City this or that. The link to it:
Please do not revert again. Instead, make your argument (and let others do so) here until we have some consensus. I do not see much support for your position. Keystone18 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The claim of official name is disputed and shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice as unambiguous fact. More importantly, it's a total red herring to worry about. The article on Los Angeles doesn't lead with "officially the City of Los Angeles". It doesn't matter if the phrasing "[C/c]ity of New York" appears in the charter. It shouldn't be written that way either way. And it still renders the footnote misplaced no matter what!
Frankly, there's no consensus for your version even in this discussion section alone. You seem to be (wrongly) hung up on whether or not "New York City" appears first in the lead sentence. It doesn't matter. At all. It has zero effect on the article title. Those are two separate discussions, and they do not have to match perfectly if grammatically it makes more sense for them not to, as is the case here. You're not going to get much traction when you begin your discussion with a fundamentally incorrect postulation. oknazevad (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I will say this regarding the footnote: I preferred it when the rationale among locals in particular and American English in general for the use of "New York City" was relegated to a footnote. It's a key aspect of the naming of the place that is more than just a passing item. But I digress.
I also think we need to introduce "NYC" better; using parentheses as though it were solely an abbreviation, and not a casual short form in its own right, is awkward. oknazevad (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Eh. Since the actual chartered name is simply "New York", but "New York City" is the common name we use for natural disambiguation (much as it's used in actual speech), then listing them in that order with the explanatory footnote immediately after it flows better grammatically. The big problem is just putting "NYC" in parentheses in the same way "NFL" is at National Football League; we don't do that with "L.A." for Los Angeles, and we shouldn't do that for New York City, either. I'll tweak it. oknazevad (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Either "New York City" or "New York State" in article titles — (Always specify which)
I've been around New York City articles on Wikipedia long enough to remember when there was an apparently-immovable consensus to make "New York" refer automatically to the Empire State (as in "Economy of New York", "Culture of New York" or "Politics of New York" with only redirects from "Economy of New York State", etc.) and require all NYC articles to include "City" as in "New York City", "Politics of New York City", etc.
Very fortunately that earlier (counter-intuitive) consensus was eventually overcome in favour of common sense and convenience to the average casual non-expert reader, who's more likely — but far from certain — to mean the City when typing in "New York".
But I disagree, almost as strongly, with making unspecified "New York" automatically refer to the City. I think that the only proper solution is to always specify which: Politics of New York City, etc., and (when it exists) Politics of New York State, etc. I don't know what to do for those who just type in New York, which is now a disambiguation page. Cf. the disambiguation for Greater New York which can easily mean either the Five Boroughs (vs just Manhattan) or the greater metropolitan area, crossing state lines, around the present New York City. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't entirely disagree, but what does this have to do with the topic of this discussion, which is how to phrase the first sentence? Also, don't put boldface in section headers. oknazevad (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Meaningless sentence in lead
Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments5 people in discussion
So Castncoot has decided to make rude attacks on me because I removed a low-quality sentence from the lead. Sources do in fact "need to source their own sources" if we want to consider them to be WP:RELIABLE and if we want to give their claims such prominent weight at the top, especially without any specification.
The very first paragraph has the line "New York is the most photographed city in the world". I think this is a rather vague and useless phrase because cities aren't always subjects of photographs, rather places within them are. So where does this come from? The original source says that New York had the most geo-tags on Panoramio, which it admits had a Western bias for its membership and posts, so giving this definitive statement without qualification may be misleading. They subsequently added this source, which says New York, and specifically Central Park, is the most photographed on the Trover website. I seriously doubt the reliability and worthiness of this site when it says Seattle with the Chihuly Garden and Glass is #6, when its population and number of visitors is much, much lower than other major cities. It even says "The data used for this infographic is likely to change as the Trover community grows" (this site never grew that large and is also now defunct). Their third source doesn't explain at all what the basis of this claim is; being a major film location for TV, movies, and advertising doesn't equate with a quantitatively comparative claim for photography generally. Moreover this website of four doesn't seem like a reliable source of journalism to originate claims as facts to be shown here prominently like this – citogenesis maybe?
Maybe New York really does have the most pictures taken there – and posted online to be counted or whatever – but I do not believe it as written passes WP:V, and I especially do not believe this statement belongs in the first paragraph, if in the article at all, as it is not particularly meaningful and does not introduce/summarize further content in the article. It just doesn't fit in at the top between New York being a major center in many areas (which have corresponding coverage in later sections) and New York being home to the UN and global investing. Thoughts? Pinging Moxy who thanked my edit. Reywas92Talk03:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:CANVASSING is a hard faux pas on Wikipedia, second only to WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:MEATPUPPETRY, and it actually is a form of meatpuppetry. This action alone should disqualify your account on Wikipedia. For background, I actually had to ask [User:Moxy|Moxy]] earlier this year on their Talk page if they were WP:STALKING me. They always manage to mysteriously appear on the articles that I’m editing, and their timing is bewildering, to the point that I’ve wondered if they have multiple identities as well. Let me put this gingerly: they are not fond of New York in the least. Over time, all of these lead section edits have already been vetted. Reliable main sources don’t need to quote your preferred secondary sources to be reliable; let’s face it, nothing will satisfy you here. If anything, the statement you are “questioning” belongs most appropriately in the lead section. Please fight your own battles without resorting to enlisting anyone’s help, particularly those who have thanked your edits. Castncoot (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
See edits all over all the time but try my best to avoid Castncoot because of their behaviour of casting aspersions with editors in good standing and as most of the edits outside NY related pages are mostly trival additions or related to images with no real harm. Time sink trying to edit this page about a great city..Castncoot does not care about edits or input from most editors (see edit and talk history here). Castncoot edit wars in real time or simply will reinstate down the road with the meaningless edit summary of clar.. Longstanding problem here specifically. But that said, they are correct - I and many other longtimers (or puppets in their words like yourself Reywas92) have tried over time and over a few articles to explain the basics of accessibility and the accademic nature of our purpose here on Wikipedia. As for the edit in question ....was a good edit to reduce trivia fluff in my view thus a thanks... people have been trying for a decade even a peer review 10 years ago.Moxy-08:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Nice example of cherry-picking from 2011-2013. An article this large and complex cannot possibly rest on one person’s shoulders. It’s gone through infinite iterations since 2013. And one person’s fluff is another person’s fact..especially when multiple independent sources come to the same notable conclusion in different ways, there must be a reasonable veracity and significance to it. Castncoot (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This is one the worst examples of jumping to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and bad-faith attacks I've ever seen. This trivia of questionable accuracy – and, at the least, poor context – does not belong in the first paragraph of this prominent article. I see you added "New York is considered the most photographed city in the world" to the Tourism section. Of course "is considered" hedges the veracity of the statement because people can consider something whether it is actually true or not or whether it can be really verified. A more accurate and usefully specific statement would be "An analysis of geo-tagged photos on Panoramio found New York City was its most photographed city in the world." This is still just a proxy for being a top tourist destination and not particularly useful. Requesting WP:3O. Reywas92Talk16:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Now you’re beginning to speak the optimal language for moving in the right direction. I don’t mind tweaking the language, as you now may be suggesting–I do mind wholesale removal of verifiably significant material. Wikipedia is chock full of comparisons, tidbits, and factoids. Some are notable. Some are not. Some belong. Some don’t. Being labeled the most photographed city in the world by multiple independent sources is highly notable, and in my opinion, amazing. Castncoot (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
And in my opinion, this tweaked language should only be in the tourism section, not the lead. It's awfully meaningless because obviously lots of photos are taken where lots of people live and visit. Just saying "multiple sources" doesn't fix the problem that the data that is the basis for this claim is limited by who is actually geo-tagging photos on a particular website – how many of these are just selfies or hundreds of duplicate shots someone took without filtering what they post or whatever other pictures taken in a city rather than "of" it? This factoid doesn't fit in the first paragraph between two sweeping sentences of what NYC is a global hub for and it likewise now unnecessarily wordy for this spot. The tourism section's statement that it's "the world's busiest tourist destination" is missing a source, but that's a lot more amazing to me and more deserving of a spot in the lead (not to mention more objectively and neutrally calculated)! Reywas92Talk17:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I concur it's trivial fluff. The issue with sourcing and with scope are well described by Reywas92. It doesn't add anything of significance. oknazevad (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I’m glad we can respectfully agree to disagree. My view is that the more photos that are documented to have been taken in a certain place is a proxy for something far, far greater than a camera snap: It is a multifactorial proxy for a city’s power, size, economy, influence, wealth, and relevance all rolled into one, as sweeping and powerful as being the financial capital of the world. This metric is sentinel. It is seminal. It is massive. -—> It is omniscient, and omnipresent. I can’t see it not being stated in the first paragraph, to jolt the reader right off the bat; I believe that not including it in the first paragraph would be a disservice to the reader. However, we’re here to collaborate with others who think oppositely. So let’s try something, if you all wouldn’t mind: if I’m not mistaken (and I could be), but I recall for some reason that a couple of or few years ago the statement was way down in the last paragraph of the lede and in that position, never caused a stir. Try it on for size there, but give it a fair chance. And if you’re still not comfortable with it, then remove it from the lead section, and that’ll be the end of the matter. Thanks. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
New York being the most photographed city in the world is amazing, but closer to WP:TRIVIA than something that should merit inclusion, and I personally tend to side with Reywas, who wins me over with the WP:V element of his side. Castncoot's sources didn't seem as reliable for this type of statement. Ultimately, I'll give Castncoot the benefit of the doubt in acting with good faith, though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: The New York metropolitan area page has a section about the CSA, that's more specific and makes more sense to link to in my opinion. Bestagon ⬡ 18:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Done. Volteer1 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done. There are plenty of mountains in the Appalachian chain that are thousands of feet tall, but they are not on the seaboard. The statement in the article is sourced. Station1 (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://i.imgur.com/nm8VpMo.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
