1. Was Manhattan Island really bought for a very small amount of currency (be it $24, one string of wampum, etc.)?
No. Charles Gehring, Director of the New Netherland Project, explains this myth in a video (skip ahead to 3:03) by the New York State Museum. In it, he says, "This is one of the biggest myths...pure fabrication. It says in the records that it was 60 guilders worth of goods. 60 guilders worth of goods would have been a lot of hard goods that the Indians couldn't produce themselves. You couldn't place a price on the...things that they were unable to make, the things they didn't have the technology for. The $24 figure was attached to the document when it was translated in the 1880s. The translators looked up the rate of exchange at the time and 60 guilders was $24. Nobody has ever even adjusted that for inflation over the years, so you not only have an incorrect rate of exchange, but the whole idea of what 60 guilders would have been worth to the Indians at the time is totally wrong."
Keepin' it real: The greatest deal in history never actually was.
According to NOAA's 1981–2010 normals, Central Park in Manhattan has a January daily average temperature of 32.6 °F (0.3 °C) and in July, this figure is 76.5 °F (24.7 °C). This, in combination with its generous annual precipitation of 49.9 inches (1,270 mm) means the city itself falls under the humid subtropical regime of the Köppen climate classification (see this map). Locations in this regime in general do not have winter snow cover that is reliable enough to augment cold air masses; the "subtropical" designator is only part of the climate type's name and does not mean that the city (or the surrounding region) is in the subtropics, nor that winters here are mild.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
New York City is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012.
It has been decided that New York City should remain at that name and not at New York, New York. For the discussion that led to this decision see Archive 2 and the additional comments in a section of Archive 5.
B. While picture ‘A’ is pretty good, it suffers from twilight darkness obscuring the outlines of the buildings, and the background including the outer boroughs appears relatively vague. On the other hand, because picture ‘B’ is so sharply lit, and also because there is more ambient light in picture ‘B’ from the sunset/early dusk, the outlines of the skyscrapers are more clear and crisp, their borders are unmistakable, and one can actually see all the way far back to the clearly lit Verrazzano Bridge in picture 'B', connecting Brooklyn and Staten Island, which are also in fact boroughs of New York City, like Manhattan. Also just as critically, picture ‘B’ displays numerous skyscrapers in Midtown Manhattan which lie north of the Empire State Building, versus the incomplete picture ‘A’, which is bumping right up close to the Empire State Building while looking southward and is therefore missing important Midtown Manhattan skyscrapers north of the Empire State Building, including the highly notable Bank of America Tower (with the blue spire, right foreground). Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. The light emitting from almost every window in B impairs the view of the individual buildings. Not that I want to cause anyone to add New York City has the highest number of light bulbs of any city in the world ever to the article, in line with all of the other claims of the city's firsts. Seasider53 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picture C How about this one? I like it because it has a whole skyline in view. We can call this one C. I think it's just as crisp as B but has a more distinctive "New York City" look. HenryMP02 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those Twin Tower lights are utilized at the somber memorial commemorations every September 11th. The picture 'C' is only of Lower Manhattan, though. Picture 'B' is more detailed than picture 'A', which is incomplete and in that sense is misleading to the reader. I believe in striving for completeness and accuracy, and Picture 'B' best fits that bill. Castncoot (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. The lens distortion on the second photo (wherein closer buildings are warped and unusually large compared to farther objects) just seems unprofessional while the first photo has a very refined look. The WTC (and the rest of lower manhattan, and the Verrazano bridge) is also far more visible in the first photo and the ESB is the centerpiece as it should be, whereas in B the ESB is upstaged by the Bank of America tower and other lovely but less significant buildings. Photo C is a nice proposal but doesn't represent midtown. RyanAl6 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly no photography expert, so if it's true that picture 'B' represents a distorted image, then I would not want to use it either; I don't mind keeping picture 'A' then. This RfC can probably be closed now. Castncoot (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't think we need to escalate our tone that far. 2. It's a bold edit and a bold revert. It is known that Nkon21 is a photographer, and I see no reason to call deferring to him "denigration". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the basis of the RfC, because another editor had the audacity to revert to Castcoot's vague "clearer" change of the longstanding image. You may have missed the ANI we had a few months ago. Things don't seem to be improving. Seasider53 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - I agree with the above, B is too cluttered, and the shapes of the individual buildings are too difficult to make out. With A, the shape of the skyline is much more recognisable Timceharris (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B - B provides a wide view of the city, I also do not think the green light emitting from the tower is representative of either the Empire State Building or NYC, although I think B is a bit too wide, it is still better than A and more representative of NYC. O.maximov (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A is clearer than B. I'm giving this answer because that was the question. "Which would make a better lede image?" is not the same thing. B covers a larger number of NYC's iconic buildings. But an image honoring the five boroughs rather than just one would be even better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Use of superlatives
Should unsubstantiated superlatives in the lead, such as:
New York is a global center of finance and commerce, culture and tech, entertainment and media, academics and scientific output, and the arts and fashion.
...and is sometimes described as the world's most important city and the capital of the world.
..the most economically powerful city in the world.
I've taken the liberty of numbering the above claims for easier reference.
This one seems like it is probably accurately descriptive, though will require excellent sourcing (as in multiple very high-quality sources for each sub-claim).
Delete with prejudice. This is WP:PEACOCK nonsense, verging on meaningless, for many readers probably offensive, and serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. Even if elements of it can be attributed to various sources, it should be removed as opinionated and promotional blather. To the extent it could be separated into two claims, the first is too subjective to be meaningful ("important" in what way, to whom?), while the second just seems calculated to piss off everyone from outside New York.
This may or may not be reliably sourceable to some extent, but also appears to be too vague and subjective to be encyclopedically meaningful. "Economically powerful" can have a wide range of meanings, which one is intended here is not clear, it is unlikely that multiple sources making a claim along these lines have the same definition in mind (yet only one source saying something like this would be insufficient), and for most senses of that phrase it would be something very difficult to reliably prove. It would be better to replace this third claim with something(s) concrete, such as one or more comparative measures that are typically used for such matters (I'm not an expert in metropolitan ecomonics, but am thinking along the lines of "whatever the city equivalent of GDP might be").
I think multiple very high-quality sources is a salient point. It seems much more common now that journalists are referencing Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia references these journalists' articles. That said, "the world's most important city and the capital of the world" is utter subjectivity and should be nuked. Seasider53 (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while 'the world's most important city' is definitely subjective, 'capital of the world' is less so.
new york is the HQ of the United Nations; further more, the concept of a caput mundi is the reason behind that phrase's use, and has a number of sources relating that concept to NYC daruda (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the phrase has any use to the impression; just specific claims should be enough, including the already mentioned HQ of the UN. We shouldn't be taking care of the definition. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
capital of the world has been part of this article all the way back since 2001, when the article was created. soo...? daruda (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'no use being in the article' is a rather dubious claim considering the very long precedent for that phrase to be used in this article daruda (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. While it obviously needs a source to back it up(which it has), a long history of a term being used to describe something is a rather clear reason as to why that term does have a use in this article daruda (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they did not make an attempt to understand what is being said above. A specific phrase being used for a long time on Wikipedia does not mean it should remain in the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
whatever the reason, it doesn't change the fact that the city is considered by many to be Rome's heir as caput mundi, and the world's most important international body being headquartered here just furthers that argument daruda (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A contemporary New York Times article is a weak reference—too close too the events and euphoria natural to a country that had vastly expanded its industrial base while suffering no mass destruction and civilian deaths, emerging as the first world superpower. Plus Rockefeller donated the land in the center of an undamaged city, New York City. Scholarly histories and journals are required. Eighty years has provided perspective. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 00:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC) —[reply]
considered by many is not encyclopedic, and would be considered by manynot to be capital of the world. "New York City is the capital of the world" is pure chauvinism. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:26, 28 April 2024 —
If there are good sources supporting this. It should stay. UN HQ is in New York, so there is merit to the statement that it is considered the world's capital. A solution I can think of is this: We write New York City is considered by many as the "world's capital". Regarding
1.New York is a global center of finance and commerce, culture and tech, entertainment and media, academics and scientific output, and the arts and fashion. This is undeniable and true. NYC is a very important city in these realms in the US which is very important in this in the world. It makes sense.
3...the most economically powerful city in the world. If a good source prooves this and this is true than it's true and should be kept. O.maximov (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be a balance of "good" and "bad" superlatives; so perhaps the latter should be added. Does NYC have, for example, the highest murder rate per capita, or the highest incidence of corruption, or the greatest total value of narcotic deals? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Murder per capita: Absolutely not. It's likely poorer than USA or a village of two killed by a non-resident if non-cities count. The largest US city with less murder per capita than NYC had 6 times less capita, there's a city with a MLB team with 19 times more murder per capita and there's even at least one US city with more murders not per capita.
Most corruption: At least not per capita that's for sure. How would you even quantify that? Is the most corrupt 150 human village on Earth cleaner than if NYC averaged 150/8,800,000ths as bad but had more than 8,800,000/150ths as many people and if that village had one more unpunished slap without due process then how many % did its 2023 corruption increase by?
They're only examples of the sort of thing we might consider including, I didn't say that these were true facts that had to be added. WP:V applies, always. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so just making sure no one gets the wrong idea. There's actually multiple US cities with a bigger raw murder count in 2023 and we're under 400 compared to 2,245 murders 1990 and 3,255 2001 if 9/11 counts. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be a balance of "good" and "bad" superlatives - oppose this and any edits premised on this logic in the strongest possible terms; it is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is possible that there are negative aspects that are equally significant which we need to cover; but it is completely inappropriate to insist that negative and positive aspects be balanced equally without regard to coverage. When coverage is largely positive, our article ought to be so as well (and vice-versa when it is negative.) Also, all three of the possible examples you gave are wrong. NYC's crime rate is low compared to other big cities and it doesn't even make the list of cities by drug use. Corruption is more vaguely-defined, so I'm not totally sure what that means, but Chicago is apparently king here. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first set of superlatives should be kept if properly sourced (many articles on major cities contain similar sourced superlatives describing a city's strengths). The second can go.
I see no issue with 1 as long as there is high quality sourcing per SMcCandlish. 2 and 3 however should be removed. The statements made in 2 and 3 are either opinions, imprecise or just incorrect. TarnishedPathtalk00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are assuming that NYC is the best in everything. It's not. And it's offensive to other people not living the US by discrediting their achievement in respective fields, giving rise to the NYC's notorious reputation of being arrogant and high-minded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what in the world are you on about? new york is always going to be stratospheric in several aspects based upon its sheer size? is that not obvious? daruda (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cacti: look at the London page: "As one of the world's major global cities, London exerts a strong influence on world art, entertainment, fashion, commerce and finance, education, health care, media, science and technology, tourism, transport, and communications." What exactly does "strong" mean, especially in a fading and increasingly irrelevant post-Brexit London? This NYC article on the other hand is far more objectively written, it simply talks about the city whose most pertinent superlative of all is literally its number of superlatives. I don't believe in trying to artificially downgrade the tone just to seem more modest or humble, as that opens up a Pandora's box. Just tell the story like it is, and source it properly. It just is what it is. And I'm not native to any place near New York. Castncoot (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree that we can keep something like claim #1. "Global center" is as equally vague as "strong influence" and can stay. It's things like the other two we're concerned about. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A global center" is just that, it's not saying "the" global center. No reason to overthink things. There is an exceptionalism to NYC that makes this article the most searched city article on Wikipedia, by a longshot (over second-place London). This exceptionalism needs to be reflected in the article in the most reliably sourced way possible. Superlatives don't need to be removed, but they should be sharply qualified. I myself simply only happened to accidentally stumble upon this discussion, and it appears that other long-term editors of this article including User:Alansohn, User:Keystone18, User:Epicgenius, User:Oknazevad, User:Mj and User:Jleon weren't invited either. Castncoot (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(pinged) Thanks for the notification. I'm going to avoid commenting in depth to avoid the appearance that I was canvassed. However, here are some brief thoughts:
I see that NYC is sometimes ranked as a global city, so maybe that can be mentioned if there are sufficient reliable secondary sources.
I would remove any claims that aren't very well sourced. Statements 2 and 3 are superlative claims and can be disputed in some contexts. (I especially question number 2, as anyone can say that their city is the best. However, 3 is also concerning: while NYC is very important from the standpoint of US finance, London is sometimes considered more important in terms of international finance. Actually, the two switch places in rankings all the time.)
London's probably still more important for some subsets of finance like ship insurance, maybe at least some commodoities and New York's more important for others like stocks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you search any search engine, you'll find many more references to New York being the financual capital of the world than London, and New York's financial supremacy has only to continued to widen over London since Brexit. Castncoot (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what your point is or how it relates to my comment. So far, we all agree to just qualify stuff if possible. Nobody agreed on removing all of them. I encourage you to read the rest of the discussion if you haven't done so yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be much better if these claims being established with concrete numbers/figures. For instance, in terms of cultural impact, you can cite a research paper detailing how NYC affect the globalization trend around the world. The main issue I have here is that these claims are unsubstantiated and does not have further clarification on its meaning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot, WP:OTHERCONTENT is never a good argument. If you think the London lede is problematic, go start a discussion about changing it there. In the meantime we can have a discussion about how to improve the lede of New York City here. TarnishedPathtalk12:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three of these are well-cited, reflect large swaths of the article, and are central to the city's notability and should therefore be kept. It is possible that they could be rewritten or replaced somehow but that would require a specific proposal; I would strenuously oppose simply removing them. Note that the third one is already attributed, which you left out; the fact that it has been called these things is genuinely important, because it is frequently and widely discussed in that way in a manner that is central to its notability and significance, ie. these are not obscure things that someone said once, but core aspects of the manner in which the city generally comes up on a global level. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well stated. You just the hammered the nail on the head. Compromising the integrity of the article and its reliably sourced statements, and diluting the facts to come across as politically correct, jeopardizes the entire integrity of Wikipedia itself. Why even bother having this article or even this encyclopedia then? Castncoot (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for "capital of the world": 1. The first source comes from a book that cites it as the financial capital of the world. 2. The second source, from the NYT but maybe that's irrelevant, narrates NY's journey to become the host city for the UN HQ, and only calls it the "global capital" in that respect. This can at most be a slight mention after the claim that NYC hosts the UN HQ with a cause-and-effect conjunction. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I try to imply here is that saying a place is the "capital of the world" is very absurd and goes against our promotional, neutral point of view, and dare I say conflict of interest guidelines. The sole reason why it is still present in the article is because editors from the NYC insist that this phrase should remain in the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That "...and is sometimes described as the world's most important city and the capital of the world." may be well cited is irrelevant. It's a mere opinion and it's also factually incorrect. New York City is demonstrably not the capital of the world, because no such thing exists. TarnishedPathtalk13:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are varying levels here. For 1, I think the sources overwhelmingly concur that New York City is indeed an important hub for those things, similar to how we say that Los Angeles is an important site in the history of film and can certainly back that up with reliable sources. 2 is more superlative puffery, and I'd probably get rid of that stuff. There is no single capital of the world, so the fact that it's "sometimes" described as those things (by whom?) is probably trivially correct, in that it has "sometimes" been called those things, but that's the exact reason we shouldn't use weasel wording like that. For "most economically powerful city", that's a bit of a fuzzy and subjective term (and one could make a reasonable case that in terms of power to impact the world's economies, that's actually Washington, DC); I would prefer replacing it with a statement that it has the highest GDP of any city in the world, which is clearly verifiable. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, especially regarding by whom (it is sometimes called Gotham by uhm someone, too) and the better way is to reliably demonstrate things, not pontificate about them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this? The mentioned statements have been heavily edited since this RfC's opening, and all this is doing now is generating confusion when we kinda have a consensus already. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Castncoot performed a "reconfig geo loc" on the infobox map in April without discussion and now would like to discuss our attempts to remove the overkill (my opinion) map of the world, so here we are. Happy to keep it if reasons are given outside of "the London article has it". Seasider53 (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your constant personal insults and attacks on me are getting weary and aren’t necessary, thank you. The world pushpin map has been there for over 100 edits without objection. New York is home to the United Nations Headquarters. New York is connected by nonstop flight service to every inhabited continent. Most cities can’t claim such universal global relevance. The London article contains the same feature. These are the two highest-ranked cities in most global city rankings, and so the world position is clearly WP:DUE. But truthfully, it could relevantly go on ‘‘all’’ global cities’ articles, including Boston and Glasgow, for example; it simply takes some effort on the part of the editors who normally edit those articles frequently to add this simple enhancement. Not sure why such an innocuous edit should bother anybody on any global city article. Castncoot (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...no, the only consensus there was that there was no consensus, and that different cities were quoted as being all over the place without any uniformity there. The discussion ended in a dead end, likely because this is too small an issue to raise a big deal about, people don’t think it’s worth wasting time hashing out a consensus, and also giant world cities like NYC aren’t boxed in and confined to be part of a single portal such as USCITIES alone, they are multidimensional. So I would plead you to try to be more constructive if you want to be a major editor on this article, perhaps update some of the older statistics with updated sources, etc., as that’s where we need help, rather than concentrating (and why?!) on something small like this. Thank you, Castncoot (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Huge numbers of articles for places in the United States use pushpin maps in the settlement infobox, but there seems to be little standardization and / or consensus as to which maps to include. Even the guidelines are inconsistent. WP:USCITY shows a model infobox for New York City with maps for New York state, the United States and North America, while the actual article for New York City includes maps for all three, plus Earth. Meanwhile, Template:Infobox settlement shows model infoboxes for Chicago and Detroit that only include a single pushpin map for the United States, while the article for Chicago itself includes both Illinois and United States and the one for Detroit shows pushpin maps for Wayne County, Michigan and United States.” That says it all, I believe. Every city is its own case study in this “global” encyclopedia as far as this matter goes. Castncoot (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Happy to keep it if reasons are given outside of "the London article has it".” I think I’ve properly obliged you, Seasider. I plead you to let this go. If you stand back and look at the forest through the trees, this seems to be a trivial issue to fuel further animus over. Castncoot (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing Seasider to mean that they felt it was relatively trivial as they were OK with it provided a reasonable explanation was given outside of London having the same feature. Castncoot (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. I stated exactly the opposite of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS stance. New York and London are the only two cities with non-stop flight service to all six inhabited continents, they are the highest-ranked as global cities. New York is the most commonly accepted city as the financial capital of the world, and the last time I looked, people are still using money. New York is home to the headquarters of the UN, the organization most commonly accepted as uniting all countries. There is only consensus at USCITIES that it’s a total scatterplot of how cities are labeled on pushpin maps, and many if not most cities don’t even have pushpin maps in the first place. It’s also a moot point anyway because nothing forces New York or other global cities to be boxed into the confines of their own countries’ portals. Castncoot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the best argument to be made for globally mapping as many global cities on pushpin maps as possible is for the sake of the fifth-grader in a remote or impoverished region of the Global South who is wondering where all of these far-off global cities are whose names are famous. All that kid has to do is to hit the radio button that says, “Location on Earth,” and voilà, where New York or any other city is relative to where that fifth-grader lives will be immediately imprinted into that child’s brain forever. That’s ultimately the spirit of Wikipedia, to bring the world closer together rather than boxing locations into the realms of the countries they are geopolitically located in; and the New York City article, of all city articles, should set that good example. And btw, why does my input count less than someone else’s? Castncoot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why have we skipped the map of North America in the volume of clickable maps? I see the continent is listed in the Los Angeles and most other major cities' articles. If you tell me that would be overkill, I may experience seepage. Seasider53 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you’re getting the “most other major cities' articles” from. Los Angeles and Mexico City do include a North American pushpin map. Chicago, Montreal, Seattle, Detroit, and San Francisco don’t. Guatemala City actually has Earth and the Western Hemisphere, but not North America. There’s zero consistency. What I will say though in thinking about it in recent days is that a continental pushpin map is probably the most useless map of all. It’s meaningless and unhelpful to be restricted to a perspective of Belize versus Canada in North America or Saudi Arabia versus Japan in Asia, for example. At least a country has sovereign geopolitical significance, a continent doesn’t even have that qualification supporting it. As an addend to an Earth pushpin map, sure, it can be helpful; but it can never supplant the utility of Earth’s global perspective. Castncoot (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To show the location of New York, we need only the map of the state, which might tend to be of more interest to Americans, and a map of the United States, which might tend to be of more interest to readers elsewhere. Virtually everyone will already know where the U.S. is in the world, so that map is superfluous. I think clutter and condescension in an article tend to make it be taken less seriously. Station1 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]