Talk:New York City

 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.  A proposal to rename the New York City article to New York failed to reach a consensus and was closed on August 7, 2008. The discussion can be found at Talk:New York/Archive 3.

Oslo a twin/sister city?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo#Twin_towns_.E2.80.94_Sister_cities

New York City is listed as one of Oslos twin/sister cities, but Oslo is not on NYC's list. Not recognized by the SCI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.89.133 (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Poorest city

This article states that New York City is the poorest city in America. http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0806em.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.75.25 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That is odviously wrong. New York is one of the richest cities in the world. If New York was the poorest it would have been in the demographics along time ago. Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP DA Fernandez (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the article. It states that NYC is the poorest city comparatively in terms of what standard of living you can achieve based on the wages paid there.--Louiedog (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Standards of living" comparisons are always nonsense.

ITOMIC (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hydrography

Can a section be added regarding New York's hydrography ? The section should contain the rivers in New York, and should also mention the proposed New York storm surge barriers. See Against the Deluge: Storm Surge Barriers to Protect New York City. Proposed barriers were:

• Parsons Brinckerhoff East River storm surge barrier
• Camp Dresser & McKee Arthur Kill storm surge barrier
• Halcrow Lower Bay storm surge barrier
• Arcadis Verrazano Narrows storm surge barrier

91.176.7.165 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

{{ESp} yes my name is quay and i would like to edit this page what i have to do becuase i got some information that need to be added if not can you add for me (Quayhands (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Indeed, don't projected future sea-level rises threaten to partially submerge large parts of lower Manhattan in particular in the next century or two unless a pretty extensive levee system is constructed - preferably sooner rather than later? Matt2h (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jleon's New Montage

Jleon - What - NY without Times Square? - A montage of New York sans Times Square leaves a huge void - can you find a montage of Times Square that is advertising-neutral? May be difficult, given the very nature of Times Square. But I think that at least a token image of Times Square belongs there - even a smaller one.

As far as the image you've chosen for the skyline, it's frankly disappointing. I actually liked the fomer one better because it at LEAST shows New York City to be a city of skyscrapers, not short, dumpy buildings. Your new montage doesn't even show the Chrysler Building. If you can find a better skyscraper montage, that would be good. Remember, "Gotham" DOES have a shadowy connotation, so the skyscraper image doesn't really need to be bright and sunny. Also, I don't think the Empire State Building needs its own separate image in the montage - it appears tacky that way and actually looks better as an integral part of the whole skyline.

Also, the previous image of the Brooklyn Bridge shows up close the beautiful ornate architecture of the bridge, while the new one doesn't.

It's OK, it's just your first try - so I'm sure you can do a great deal better!

Thmc1 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Thmc1

Thanks for the feedback. First of all, the image does show the Chrysler Building if you look closely, while the original image barely showed it at all. Also, I don't know how you got the impression they are "short and dumpy" buildings, since that picture shows all of the tallest buildings in Midtown. Maybe you're right about the original skyline photo being good because it is a little mysterious, but that is not necessarily how everyone sees the city. Let's see if a consensus forms on which image is better. I will gladly switch back to the original if that is what people want. --Jleon (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jleon, I think your montage looks good, the pictures are high quality and look well together. I just have two concerns: first perhaps with the exception of the Brooklyn bridge all of the pictures are in manhattan, this is an article on the entire city so include some pictures from the outerboroughs like Yankee stadium , Citi Field or downtown Brooklyn. Second the montage itself is too large, something closer to the 250-275 range would fit better. Astuishin ^(talk) 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I also have a slight preference for the old montage, although Astuishin makes a good point that scenes from the other boroughs are very much in order (and the old montage was just as bad in that respect). Powers ^T 12:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree that photos of the other boroughs would be nice, there really is a scarcity of quality pictures of easily recognizable landmarks from outside Manhattan. I once had an image of the Unisphere in the original montage, and several people expressed confusion over what it was. Furthermore, adding low quality images of Grand Army Plaza or Coney Island simply to have Brooklyn represented, for instance, doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose, and I think the overall aesthetics of the image should be the top priority. Also, I'm against having photos of any sports stadium in the image, because every city has them and they are mostly unremarkable. If you look at similar images for other cities (i.e. Chicago, London, etc.), you'll see that the focus is almost always on easily identifiable landmarks that are primarly in the city's center. --Jleon (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So I tried to follow people's advice and made the image much less Manhattan-centric (even Staten Island is represented with the Ferry), and Times Square adds a little energy. I'm still not 100% happy with it, but I think it should do for now. --Jleon (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to JLeon's Latest Montage from 3/31/10

Excellent, JLeon - a great improvement over both previous montages.

Reasons: 1) NYC is as far as possible from the ordinary city and DESERVES a montage that exudes grandeur and excellence - your latest montage does this well.

2) Statue of Liberty smack dab in the center - I love it, given that it is perhaps the grandest icon of NYC as well as of the USA as a whole.

3) Times Square is exhibited beautifully - you can actually feel the energy radiating from the picture, and it simultaneously avoids displaying visibly specific products.

4) The Brooklyn Bridge is displayed in its ornate glory, and as a bonus, even the Manhattan Bridge is visible in the background.

5) The skyscraper image has apparently been magnified such that the Chrysler Building is well visualized, and Midtown Manhattan can be appreciated for the cluster of skyscrapers that it is.

6) The Unisphere is an apt symbol of the cosmopolitanism of the city as a whole and in particular of the borough of Queens, where it resides.

7) When the new WTC tower ascends to an appreciable height in construction, perhaps you could consider a new picture of Lower Manhattan.

8) True, the Empire State Building is missed, but being located on 34th Street, it tends to be somewhat isolated from the other Midtown skyscrapers located further north anyway - I'm sure that was a dilemma for you.

Nice job!

Thmc1 (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Thmc1

I agree, its very good! Astuishin ^(talk) 10:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad people like it. I definetly plan to update the Lower Manhattan picture once 1 WTC gets to a good height. --Jleon (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Manhattanhenge

I really think that the Manhattanhenge effect should get a mention somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.238.22 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's far too unimportant relative to the many things of major importance in NYC. You can't mention everything. Carlo (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section Length

Given the unique level of complexity of the topic and city at hand, my assessment is that the current length of the lede is just right - I would agree with user "TenPoundHammer" that any LONGER would be too long. I haven't seen editors rush to trim the lede from its present state in a significant way recently - in fact, editors have actually added on a little more recently. I think people realize that by paring this lede significantly, uniquely important and pertinent lede-level facts would be cut - remember, you don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water." If anything, the IntroLength advisory tag posted by TenPoundHammer is adding a few extraneous lines to the lede and should be deleted.

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction is too long. Globalistum (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Distributed accordingly.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The images are too big

Many images are too large in my opinion. The whole article compared to other city articles looks like a billboard. The image compilation at the beginning of the article is also too big. All in all it doesnt look like a serious article.Globalistum (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with user "Globalistum". Apparently user "Astuishin" likes the images as well. Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Giovanni da Verrazzano vs Henry Hudson

While Giovanni da Verrazzano did indeed sail into the Lower New York Bay and land in Brooklyn, he did not pass through the Narrows and did not explore the New York Harbor. He shipped out the next day. It was Robert Juet, first mate of the Half Moon who first documented the 1609 Henry Hudson 1609 voyage. The prominence of the first voyage over the latter is misleading, don't you think?Djflem (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Giovanni da Verrazzano has played absolutely no role in New York history, he stopped here, left and everybody forgot about it. His image in the article should be replaced with Henry Hudson or even Peter Stuyvesant as the most famous early governor. --Hatteras (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

World Class Universities in Intro Section

So far only NYU and Columbia are listed as the "world class universities of New York City" in the introductory section of the article. It seems to me that the other Ph.D. granting institutions within the five boroughs ought to be added. Fordham University and Rockefeller University especially have substantial international recognition as research universities, as does Yeshiva (particularly their medical school). (Mpaver217 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

I agree, especially with adding at least Rockefellar to the list. And how or why is Cordozo Law listed as 'world class' (which is false, as it does not rank anywhere near other law schools in NYC, or at least should not listed without listing St. John's Law) and especially without mentioning Yeshiva, since Cordoza is a school of the latter?63.118.154.72 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate and Sunshine

As per http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate.php?location=USNY0996, NYC has an average of 2677 hours of sunshine per year. It is incorrect to take weatherbases 58% of total possible sunshine and multiply out because 58% is simply an average of the 12 months. Of course, the 12 months differ significantly in how much sunshine is possible, with most late spring and summer and least in late fall and winter. In NYC, sunniest months as a percent of total possible happen to be summer months. So if you want to change to number of sunshine to something other than 2677, find a better source than weatherbase.Mishnayd (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

new york sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.122.171 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)