Talk:New York City

To Do List

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with the TO DO list suggested by another editor. I believe you can't have such a cookie-cutter recipe for all different types of articles. City and state articles, for example, represent a totally different animal from scientific or biographic articles and need to have a (relatively) longer, stronger, more detailed, and more well-cited lead section. Also, more illustration is absolutely justified in these articles without being mislabeled as galleries. This crucial distinction needs to be recognized and the algorithms for different kinds of Wikipedia articles created in great detail before one editor decides to revamp a longstandingly constructed and consensused article. Castncoot (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who made the to-do list. I was using the recent peer review as a source for the list. OIFA (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Surprised

Skimming over the article, I am very surprised that there is not a photo of the airplanes being slammed into the twin towers of World Trade Center or a photo of Ground Zero. This was a very important period of New York City's history and it just seems odd that besides a brief mentioning of this terrible tragedy, there isn't a photo to highlight just how important 9/11 was. Yoganate79 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: the events of 9/11 heavily influenced New York ever since they occurred. In my opinion a photo like this should be added (I would add it myself if I was autoconfirmed). Level Crossing (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 175 hits the south tower of the World Trade Center

Done, picture added. Level Crossing (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Kind of misleading II

I have another note about something that is kind of misleading, but in the sidebar, where it says "Metro" population, as ~18 million, this also includes Newark. Is it common knowledge that Newark is included in the metro of New York? Because when I read it, I read that new york's metropolitan area is 18 million, and I think, New York city. Not nyc and newark.

Could just be Common knowledge, though... Noah

Edit request from 121.13.138.76, 30 September 2011

I think there are mistakes on the size of New York City. Overall New York City sizes is around 800 km2 including, the Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AtiyaDixon.shtml Zuijiadeai (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem. The article says "a land area of just 305 square miles (790 km²)". Is 790 not "around 800"? Powers ^T 17:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Montage change

User Bleff added a new montage to the article's intro. Since changes like this have always been discussed here first, I just thought I should open this up for an informal vote between the previous and current images. So which do people prefer? Personally, I have a slight preference for the previous one, but I'm not exactly impartial since I had created the image myself. --Jleon (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:NYC Montage 16 by Jleon.jpg Previous

Current

I prefer the first one, if only because it seems neater if that makes sense. I also think picture choice is better in the first. Anoldtreeok (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that I overall prefer the second (current) one, especially the lead skyline picture of Midtown - VERY impressive picture. However, the Brooklyn Bridge picture doesn't show the arches well face-on, which tends to be slightly irksome to me. Castncoot (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The more time passes, the more the current montage grows on me. However, it is very important to keep in mind that the montage, unlike the rest of the article, is entirely preference-based and has no "right" answer. And since New York, being so diverse and multi-dimensional, has so many facets, "moods", and places to showcase, I suspect that the montage itself will (and probably should) change every few months anyway. So Jleon (talk) (and anybody else), we'll keep you continuously on your toes! Castncoot (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with it being changed periodically. The current image is very nice, though I think it could have used a little bit more work in terms of its composition and the cropping of the pictures. Maybe we can wait and see if anyone else feels strongly about it. --Jleon (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the first montage's layout but the second montage has much better photos (except the Brooklyn Bridge and the U.N.). My main concern with both montages is that they are predominately Manhattan-based. Powers ^T 13:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Both have their own strengths. I think the Unisphere picture on the new one is much better, as well as the Statue of Liberty one. The new Midtown Manhattan picture is perhaps lacking in resolution, and the UN Headquarters one is not as imposing as the previous one. The nighttime shot of the Brooklyn Bridge on the previous one was likewise much more impressive and added darker tones to a very daylight-oriented montage. In my opinion we should keep the current one, for the sake of variety, but improvements are always more than welcome, and Midtown Manhattan could definitely use some pixels up there. Good job on both, though.--AndresTM (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

City's Annual Budget and management?

I came here looking for information on NY City's budget and annual expenses, but found nothing. Since NYC is a City-State type munipiciality it would be helpful if some one could add the information to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the information might be found at Government of New York City. It's difficult to fit everything in this article, but it might be a good idea to add a sentence or two on finances. Station1 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

How many languages?

The intro implies that it is a fact that 800 languages are spoken in New York, but the demographics article repeatedly states 170 languages. I can see (from the relevant link on the NY page) that the discrepancy comes from 170 languages spoken in public schools, while 800 languages is an estimate including speakers of other languages not in public schools, and not registered on a census. But the article only says 'some experts believe' so I think it should not be presented as an established fact.--ImizuCIR (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The 170 figures are significantly outdated and even when obtained only reflected a number of languages specifically volunteered to have been spoken by public school students and not necessarily by other, and more significantly, elderly generational members. If you read the article carefully, one of the main points by the august New York Times article quoted, in fact, exactly stressed the point that a significant proportion of these languages are endangered per survival. The most reliable figures would indeed then be quoted by linguistic experts and therefore the 800 number is reliably cited, relevant, and is accurately phrased in situ. Castncoot (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Lowest temperature ever recorded in New York City

This article says that the lowest temperature ever recorded in New York City was -15 degrees Fahrenheit. However, in the article Year Without a Summer, there is a sourced mention of temperatures in New York dropping to -26 degrees Farenheit. Which article is correct? Trektosaturday (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The lowest temperature ever recorded at the official climate station in Central Park was -15 degrees. Data from Central Park goes back to 1869. Since the Year without a Summer was long before the government kept official weather and climate records, I don't know if it is considered official. Famartin (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up! Trektosaturday (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Article full of bloated, biased, unverified claims - more 'hyping' NYC than it is factually presenting it.

Notice how many times this blatantly biased article presents the city in the following way, by saying 'most .. in the world' frequently, citing news sources and no official documentation to back up their claims? Compare this city article to others, and you see a notable difference in the tone of writing here - it is one of major hype, and perhaps desperation to include as many 'most .. in the world' claims as possible - whereas others aren't as intensely hyped and bragging false 'world' claims.

1. 'widely deemed the cultural capital of the world' - wrong. This is subjective. Many other cities can claim as being a cultural capital that rivals and beats New York City - London, Los Angeles, Singapore

2. 'As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York, making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world' - wrong. This is a speculation made in a newspaper article. Official government statistics say this city still speaks just over 150 languages (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/pop_facts.shtml). Why use a newspaper article over a government publication in presenting this on this site? I also suggest you also employ some common sense in considering the validity of this bloated claim.

3. 'New York has the largest internet presence of any location in the world; registering 7.1 billion search results as of December 2011' - no. New York City presents about 3 billion search results on Google (unrestricted). New York 7 billion. However this article is on the city only, not the state, and therefore it should be modified to present this (albeit useless) fact. New York is bound to have more than New York City, as it is a state and would empass more things with other cities and towns in it. Focus on the city. The sentence quoted manipulates the reader into thinking this is in regard to the city when in fact, strictly speaking, it's not.

4. 'The Crossroads of the World' - another arrogant 'world' claim. It is merely an intersection. Why hype it into something more? This article is supposed to be factual.

5. 'New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, functions as the financial capital of the world' - no. New York City ties with London as the financial capital of the world. Your sources are also questionable - one is a poll (52), another an opinionated and rather insulting news article from the views of one journalist (55). If you do your research, you will see London has more finance flowing in it than NYC, primarily due to its central location and ability to deal with both the west and east. NYC has no such ability.

6. 'Manhattan's real estate market is among the most prized and expensive in the world' - I don't think so. Look here: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-expensive-real-estate-in-the-world-2011-10.

7. 'Manhattan's Chinatown incorporates the highest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere' - Wrong again. San Francisco lays to this claim.

8. 'Numerous colleges and universities are located in New York, including Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, which are ranked among the top 100 in the world' - the first two yes, the latter no. See: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011?page=1. Again, unfair overhyping is evident here.

I do not regard this article anymore as factual. To fill it with outrageous, bloated claims (especially how many 'most .. in the world' remarks there are) and to not moderate and take action on it is propaganda and unfair in that other people will believe the numerous false claims made about this city.

As a frequent Wiki reader, I am left very disapppointed here at the arrogance and unfair claims this city makes for itself in its overhyping.

Sort it out, please. Keep it factual. Thank you, D. Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperer1982 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

D. Ryan, thank you for the specificity of your criticism. The wonderful thing about wikis is that if you don't like something you can change it! If it's a particularly controversial change that some editors might be attached to, you should discuss it first here on the talk page, but for most changes, just go ahead and fix it, including an explanatory note in the edit summary. We strive for a neutral wikipedia and your criticism can be instrumental in helping maintain that neutrality.--Louiedog (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your frustration is discernible; however, it is also misplaced. This article is likely one of the most thoroughly cited articles in all of Wikipedia (I surmise you may have a problem with that statement as well - I don't know how to cite that), and the reason behind this is merely the subject of the article itself, which justifiably lends itself to the complexity and superlatives embodied in the article. It would be childish (and counterproductive), but very easy, to rebut your statements point by point. Better simply to state that the rules of Wikipedia need to be followed, and that conversely, omission of significant data would NOT do justice to a critical article and would not be indicated. Castncoot (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This article went through an excruciating process of citation and verification a couple of years ago in order to qualify for its status as a Featured Article. However, like all Wikipedia articles, it's subject to change, hopefully for the better, as many users, readers and editors go over it word by word and line by line. ¶ I also tend to agree with some criticisms about some of the superlatives of non-objective subjects. They'd actually be stronger if they were better focussed. For example, no one can argue with the enormous variety, depth, sophistication, importance and influence of New York's cultural centers, but no one can argue with those of such cities as London, Paris and Los Angeles either. Few performers have been driven to suicide because they had to choose the West End over Broadway, or vice-versa. Only when the present financial crisis has largely passed will we really be able to tell whether the world's current "financial capital" (as if such a thing existed) is Wall Street, London or some other place. But that doesn't mean there should be no mention of New York City's importance in culture, finance, commerce, education, information and diplomacy. Whisperer1982 is certainly free (I'd say welcome) to correct and refine those superlatives that he or she finds misplaced. Those corrections will be challenged by others, and perhaps discussed here; but that's how we get to the best answer. Editors should be driven to find better and more recent sources for their claims or counterclaims. With any luck, we'll all learn something in the process. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Eloquently stated, although I'm not sure saying anything that Whisperer1982 shouldn't have already known. Truth be told, given his or her position, I would develop the articles featuring the other cities of his or her interest in a constructive manner rather than targeting a tightly sourced article for whatever reason. Castncoot (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some truth to what Whisperer1982 is stating; the article does come off quite biased. -Also see the sections above called "Kind of Misleading".- There is a tone in this article of the "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. Now there's no doubt that the United States is the sole super power of the world, but the line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the best city in the country. It is the most populous, but that doesn't make it the best. Los Angeles can do a lot of bragging too, and so can San Francisco. And as far as the minorities go in the country, I would say Chicago did much more to further their cause than New York City. Like him or not (which isn't my point here), but didn't the nation's first black President, black First Lady, and black First Children come from Chicago, not New York City. And didn't the first black female US Senator (Carol Mosley Braun) come from Chicago, not New York. And hasn't Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan always historically been more popular than Al Sharpton? Sharpton has finally managed to turn it on a little more in the later years. Of course, there are those who can't stand them and those who love them, but that's not my point. My point is they came from another city that did much more for them than New York City. And if Hillary Clinton ever becomes president, the first female president would now have been born and raised in Chicago.

And Whispere1982 makes some serious points that shouldn't be overlooked. There are only eight points there so it's not that hard to verify, especially the ones that may blatantly be wrong, or just opinion. Such as:

Number 2 -The above poster states that government data shows there are approximately 150 languages spoken in NYC, while a newspaper article states 800 languages are spoken, so Wiki just chooses to go with the newspaper article? If 800 is right then it should be in the article, if 150 is right then that should be in the article. Those two numbers are nowhere near each other. It's acceptable to use newspaper info when there is no other info, but why would it be chosen over government data? If 150 is the correct number, but no one is verifying this from other sources or changing the article if necessary, then the poster is right; this is just an article of biased information and hype.

Number 3 -Largest internet presence on any location with 7.1 billion search results. Is New York (state) being counted in some of those results? Because both the city and state have the same name, it is likely. But to credit all the searches under New York (city) would be like giving Los Angeles all the credit for anyone who searches the words Los Angeles or California on the internet. But of course this would never happen because they have separate names. In the case of New York (city or state) how do you know which location to give the credit to since they share the same name? It a person typed "New York City" or "New York State" then it is known. If only "New York" were typed, why is Wiki assuming that is a search for the city each time? This is really a useless statistic that can be removed from the article, indeed giving the fact it is hard to determine which location (city or state) that people were searching.

Number 5 -There are many reports (quite a number of reports) that state London is over New York City, or equivalent to it, in the financial sector. Now there are also reports that state New York City is the leading center. The Wiki article on London states that London is the world's largest financial center, alongside New York. Why then does the Wiki New York City article not say New York City is the world's largest financial center, alongside London? Instead it states that New York is one of "three command center" globally for commerce, with London and Tokyo being the other two. Stating it this way doesn't give any inclination that London may be over or equal to New York in this sector. -Basically in the London article, London shares the title with New York; but in the New York article, you don't know what's what with the cities involved -which is the way it was meant to be written.

Number 6 -Manhattan real estate is the most "prized" and "expensive" in the world. According to the link the poster provided, there are many cities with more expensive real estate. And this one is pretty easy: The word "prize" in this case is just an opinion; the word "expensive" perhaps can be presented as fact. An example: I were forced to move against my wishes to New York City due to a job transfer. Once there, I paid $700 thousand for an apartment. I would not consider it a "prize" as I did not want to move there, although I would consider it "expensive". That goes with the hype of this article; that everyone WANTS to or SHOULD want to live in New York. -At the very least the sentence should read "Manhattan's real estate is among the most expensive in the world". But drop the word "prized"; a prize to whom?

These comments are not meant to attack any person. But the article does have a certain biased, pro-New York tone throughout it that one would not expect from an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.226.14.5 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see the point. Apart from the "most this" and "most that", just take: "New York's subway is also notable because nearly all the system remains open 24 hours a day, in contrast to the overnight shutdown common to systems in most cities, including London, Paris, Montreal, Washington, Madrid and Tokyo." The fact is that most of the subway runs 24/7. Mentioning a number of large cities by name that don't have this comes very close to bragging. The next sentence states: "The city's complex and extensive transportation system also includes...." The wording "complex and extensive" is redundant, the text before that already stated how complex and extensive the system is... Joost 99 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As Loodog pointed out, there is nothing stopping Wisperer1982 from making edits to the article. Also, many of his/her counterpoints are unsourced or simply misplaced. For instance, the article is not calling Times Square the "Crossroads of the World" by simply reporting that it has often been called that. Also, even if the real estate source is correct, being 11th in the world still makes it accurate to say that it is "among" the most expensive. Lastly, the claim that SF's Chinatown is more highly concetrated than NY's is clearly wrong. --Jleon (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article cannot be edited because there are no edit tabs, it is locked. Also, the "iconic New York City subway system?" Iconic?...really? -And no mention of or going into detail about the severe financial situation of New York City in the 1970s, when it was going bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the federal government?

Here is an insight to New York in the 1970s:

Dirty, dangerous, and destitute. This was New York City in the 1970s. The 1960s were not yet over, and war still raged in Viet Nam, fueling resentment against the government. Nixon and the Watergate scandal created even more resentment, cynicism, and skepticism. Economically, stagnation coupled with inflation created a sense of malaise. The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 delivered another blow to the U.S. economy, and brought the misery of long lines to buy gasoline. Conditions in Harlem and Bed-Stuy were horrendous, with abandoned buildings and widespread poverty. The Bronx routinely saw buildings ablaze. The subways were covered everywhere with ugly graffiti and they were unreliable. It seemed as if the entire infrastructure was in decay. Political corruption, sloppy accounting, and the cost of the war were killing the city. Times Square was seedy and sleazy. Pimps, hookers, and drug dealers owned the area. Crime was rampant, and the police were virtually powerless to stop it. Random killings by the "Son of Sam" made New Yorkers even more fearful. The parks were in decay, with and litter and bare lawns, and it was home to muggers and rapists. When the city of New York had to beg the federal government for a financial bail-out, the President said no. The New York Daily News headline said it all: "Ford to City - Drop Dead."

Large sections of the city such the South Bronx, Lower East Side, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Harlem looked like European cities which had been bombed during World War II. Sometimes entire blocks or several blocks would contain crumbling buildings, abandoned by their owners because the tenants could not pay rent. Conditions in these areas gave rise to street gangs and crime that spread city-wide. People tore the boards of the windows or smashed the concrete blocks in doorways to gain access to these abandoned buildings, which were then used by gangs, drug addicts, and children playing. Eventually, some people moved into these buildings as squatters, and efforts were made to rehabilitate or replace substandard housing. The lack of jobs and housing put enormous stress on the city's public assistance programs including housing, education, and healthcare. Many corporations left New York as conditions deteriorated, since new communications technology made it possible to do business anywhere. Most television production fled to Los Angeles and its vicinity.

New York City lost nearly a whopping 1 million people within a ten year span, from the 1970 census to the 1980s census. The exact figure was slighty under 900,000. Eventually New York City was bailed out by the federal government, but continued to have its seedy reputation throughout the 1980s, until conditions began to see a turn-around in the mid 1990s.

This all of course would be written in encyclopediac terms, but this article touches on nothing like this. And again, nothing can be edited because it is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that you, Allan? If not, the preceding post really ought to be given attribution, since it's copypasted from here. Fair is fair, after all. --Seduisant (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah it is copypasted from somewhere else; I thought that was implied by the way it was written. That's why I said it should be changed into encyclopediac terms. Otherwise I would have wrote it in encyclopediac terms to begin with. But the point is New York City is not this remarkable piece of land on earth that the article tries to make it out to be, and it certainly wasn't in the 1970s. This artice doesn't even go into detail of that severely difficult time for the city. At least a paragraph is warranted, especially since the city lost close to 900,000 people in only a ten year time span. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

While I somewhat agree with you on some counts, I think that your opinion is every bit as biased as you claim the article to be, only, of course, the other way. While some of your complaints are valid, others go too far and show that you're just going out of your way to discredit any superlative that is used to describe New York City.

1. Yes, it is subjective, but that's why it says "widely deemed"—and why there are references showing that New York City is, indeed, widely deemed to be the cultural capital of the world. The article does not claim that NYC is the cultural capital. If you find other articles saying that London or Los Angeles is the cultural capital of the world, you can include that information in those cities' articles, saying, like it is said here, that those cities are "deemed" the cultural capital of the world by some commentators. I am against changing this phrasing, because it is not incorrect and it's got proper references.

2. I agree that the phrasing should be changed. The NY Times article says, and I quote, "While there is no precise count, some experts believe New York is home to as many as 800 languages." It acknowledges that the 2000 census yielded a different number for the most linguistically diverse borough. This article could be changed to say something along the lines of, "It is estimated that as many as 800 languages are spoken in the city, making it the most linguistically diverse in the world." This claim would be consistent with the reference.

3. Nothing to say here. I agree. While it is likely that most of these results are city-, not state-related, this is purely speculation.

4. It may be arrogant, but it is a nickname that has existed for years. Again, the article is not claiming that Times Square is the Crossroads of the World. It is saying that Times Square has been iconified as "the Crossroads of the World" (enclosed in quotes, which makes a huge difference), which is a fact and it is consistent with the references. I am against changing or removing this bit.

5. By many metrics, ranging from daily trading volume to total market capitalization to hedge funds to many more, NYC remains a far bigger financial center than London. This is something, however, that could be discussed in depth, along with the editors of the London article, but I think this topic deserves a debate entirely dedicated to it. This is not it.

6. "is among the most prized and expensive" is not the same as "is the most prized and expensive." You haven't disproved anything with that link. If anything, you're supporting the claim. To be 12th among the many real-estate markets in the world is to be among the most prized and expensive of them. I am completely against changing or rephrasing this bit.

7. It is a dubious claim, but your matter-of-fact tone isn't any better, because it is also dubious that San Francisco's Chinatown is larger. The 2010 census assigns 45,000 people to the N.Y. Chinatown and 100,000 to the S.F. Chinatown. However, other estimates have placed N.Y. Chinatown's population at above 150,000. I haven't seen a comparable or superior estimate of the population of S.F.'s Chinatown. I agree that the phrasing should be changed, though, to include the concept of "estimate."

8. Again, it's very hard to get through what you write, what with your arrogance and delusions of authority. You speak as if you were some sort of judge appointed by God himself to determine which references are good and which aren't. The article provides a perfectly valid reference that indeed places those three universities among the world's top 50. Your source is no better than the source the article provides, which features a ranking that wasn't even compiled by New Yorkers or even Americans. In fact, having been very familiar with university rankings for years, I can safely tell you that the ARWU ranking is more widely used and studied than the QS ranking. The phrasing of the article does not communicate the idea that these three universities are among the world's 50 best. It merely says that they have been ranked among the world's 50 best. That is a perfectly valid claim and it is appropriately referenced. I disagree with changing or removing this.

All in all, I could have felt more inclined to agree with you on some of your points, had you not gone on an all-out, highly biased, and even resentful rant against the article and the city. Most of the statements you claim are arrogant or overhyping (what does that mean, anyway? I mean, is there any context in which the word "hype" can be free of subjectivity?) are indeed verifiable and referenced. A couple of them could be reworded and one of them can be discussed at length. But you don't need to deprive the article of its every superlative. A lot of articles of European places (and even other American places) feature even more subjective claims, such as "best quality of life," and few people want to dispute them. --AndresTM (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AndresTM, I think you are just as arrogant as the blatant, biased article written on this city. I stand by my guns insofar as my points made on languages (NYC really only has about 200), universities (only two are in the world's top 50 or so, not three), and being the financial centre (which it's clearly not - NYC and the US as a whole is in decline, business booms in the east, and of course the aforementioned London has business dealings with both east and west). You, like this article, seem to think that New York has the best of everything, and like the article, thinks it's ok to hype it up by having as many 'biggest...in the world'/'most...in the world' claims (bloating claims) as possible, and selling this propaganda off as fact. I've seen the effect it's having. I've noticed a few of these skewed 'facts' in magazines and it's concerning that people are starting to believe in the lies about this city. The article makes the place seem bigger than it is, when in fact it is not. Stop presenting this place as some kind of Disneyland which everyone must go to.

As for this: 'A lot of articles of European places (and even other American places) feature even more subjective claims, such as best quality of life' - oh please, show me ANY other city article that has similar overhyping that *constantly* overrates it by saying 'it has the biggest this in the world', 'it has the most that in the world'. I'm sorry, but there isn't any. If there was, I'm sure users would edit and change it so that it appears that NYC is 'higher', so to speak. The constantly hyping can even be seem not just in this article, but anything relating to New York city (in other articles). You don't see this for any other city, so why for this one?

Finally, I do not appreciate your personal attacks by calling me names and calling me a 'judge appointed by God'. Seriously, get over yourself. Just because I don't believe the lies and constant, annoying, bragging this article makes doesn't make me 'arrogant'. On the contrary, I'm just merely pointing out the pomposity of this article and how I think it should be toned down, greatly, so it can be moderate and balanced, and not so blatently biased and thinking it's the darn centre of the universe when it is not. YOU sir, are the arrogant one. Despite the skewed points, you prefer to keep it as it is. You can argue your cause until you're blue in the face, you can call me 'arrogant' all you want just because I don't believe in your 'high and mighty' article; essentially, it will NOT change my view. To reiterate what a user said earlier:

"There is some truth to what Whisperer1982 is stating; the article does come off quite biased. -Also see the sections above called "Kind of Misleading".- There is a tone in this article of the "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. Now there's no doubt that the United States is the sole super power of the world, but the line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the best city in the country. It is the most populous, but that doesn't make it the best".

From all the articles I've read on this site, this one still is the most biased/shamefully written. I urge for a review and to have it rewritten to present a more balanced and factual view (to whoever's able to unlock and have the ability to do it), and not overzealous in tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperer1982 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It takes an arrogant zealot to know one, doesn't it, Whisperer? If you don't want to be called arrogant, then don't pretend that just because you dislike a source, then it is completely invalid. We could stay here all day long, every day for a year denouncing each other for being arrogant and biased, but I'm sorry to tell you, I won't bite. I'm not playing your infantile games. I presented to you a thorough rebuttal, point for point, sometimes even conceding that you were right (thanks for acknowledging and appreciating the gesture, by the way). Yes, I did say that your "rant" seemed to stem from some sort of resentment. Yes, I did say that you seemed to be as biased as you think the article is. And yes, I did call you arrogant said you had delusions of authority, but your latest reply seems to validate and even justify those things I said. Again, if a respected and accredited source says THREE N.Y. universities are in the world's top 50, there is no reason to give way to your whims and erase that sentence just because you want to give more credibility to the one that says it's only two. You could have made a case as to why one source is better than the other, but no, you just assume that by demanding that the source be changed, we immediately need to do so, because your wish is everyone's command. And that's just one of the many examples of why your attitude does not help one bit. One piece of advice: if you can't stand being called "arrogant," don't go around using the word "overhyped" to qualify things, as if you had the sole authority to determine what's being "overhyped," as opposed to "justifiably hyped."

Anyway. I'm more than willing to engage in respectful, courteous, and intelligent debate. I'm not putting all the blame for our failure so far to do so on you, but I'm certainly not taking it all. As I said before, I made the first step by taking some of my time to address every one of your concerns. You rendered my efforts useless by vilifying me and solely focusing on what I said about *you,* utterly failing to produce a thoughtful response to anything I said about *your points.* I would love to leave all this childish bickering behind and really collaborate with you to make this article better. Contrary to what you claim, I do not believe that New York has the best of everything in the world. But I am well aware that, being the big city it's been for centuries, it is bound to have bragging rights to a number of superlatives. If someone says that India is one of the most populated countries in the world, they are not being blatantly biased and arrogant. If someone says that Paris is one of the world's most visited cities, they are not "overhyping" Paris. Those are facts, and attempting to delete them from our encyclopedias would be pointless and counterproductive. Likewise, there is no reason to be offended because someone says that New York has *one of the most* expensive real-estate markets in the world.

There's your olive branch. Will we talk about the article or about how arrogant we are? Your decision. If you choose the former, you will soon see another reply from me. If you choose the latter, sorry, I'm not wasting any more of my time.

Best wishes,--AndresTM (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been the country's largest city since 1790.[38]

Unfortunately this citation proves only that "It has been the country's largest city after 1790" Bulwersator (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, New York City has been the nation's most populous city since the census began. Two little know facts, however, which aren't in the article: Philadelphia was the nation's most populous city before the first census count began. When the first census count was taken, it happen to be at the same New York City just edged Philly to become larger, therefore Philly doesn't really get credit for having being the nation's largest. Instead articles, like the New York City article, states New York has been the largest since census counts began.

Also, Chicago was on the verge of overtaking New York City as the United States's most populous city. Notice the 1880 census results for both cities, and look at the 1890 census results for both cities. Chicago was quickly gaining on New York City. So during the 1890s, New York, to offset this, annexed what was independent areas like Brooklyn, and a large portion of what is now the Bronx, to vastly increase its population. So by the next census in 1900, New York had given itself a more comfortable lead. Had this not happened, the two cities would probably had been nearly equal in population by the 1900 census, and Chicago would have had more people by the 1910 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. The 5 boroughs didn't incorporate in order to edge out Chicago, they did so for the natural reason a common city which had spread over several counties might. Even today Chicago is more contained in Cook Country than NYC was in New York County 120 years ago. Although Chicago experienced very rapid growth in the late 19th century and incorporated its current extent then, NYC experienced similar growth and at no time was Chicago larger than NYC or close to being so as the growth tables for both on their respective articles clearly show. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of images to reduce clutter

Cadiomals removed several images to reduce clutter. I believe that some of the images should be restored. In particular the pictures of Citi Field, the U.S. Open, and the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. I believe that these are iconic, and provide better balance to the article. NYCRuss ☎ 12:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cadiomals' edit. We can't show everything in one article and those images are hardly iconic. There are still too many images. They take a long time to load on slow connections and crowd small screens. Some are "pretty" but don't really add much info to the article. In any case that edit was a great start. Station1 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are to reduce the pictures, I believe that Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is a better choice for the article than the George Wshington Bridge. It's more representative of the city in a number of ways: It connects two parts of the city, and the history of that bridge is closer to the heart of 20th century NYC history as a work of Robert Moses. I believe that the US Open would be a better choice than either baseball stadium. It is an event that is covered internationally, and that is associated with the city. NYCRuss ☎ 19:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If we must have a bridge, I'd pick the Brooklyn Bridge, but everyone has their favorite. I'm not as concerned about switching one image for another as about not increasing the total number. Station1 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I believe that is a good idea to find consensus about which pictures are displayed is to achieve stability for the article. That could be important if an effort is made to get this back to featured status. As far as the Brooklyn Bridge goes, how about this picture?

NYCRuss ☎ 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, 3 bridges for the price of one image - that does save space! Station1 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And the formatting with that picture looks better with the two adjent ones than either the GW Bridge or the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge do. NYCRuss ☎ 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't care which images are chosen to stay or go as long as in the end no more images are added. The reason I chose the GW bridge to stay was because it is the busiest bridge in the world, so it may be more significant. The reason I removed Citi field as opposed to Yankee stadium was because I didn't want two similar images of baseball fields to take up room next to each other, and the Yankees are simply more famous than the Mets. I also removed the US open picture because we already had a picture of a sports field (Yankee stadium) and I didn't want two similar pictures, so I chose to keep the marathon pic for more variety. I just don't want pictures taking up so much room and squishing the text, it's an eyesore. And we can't include everything. Cadiomals (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the Brooklyn Bridge, I honestly don't care for it to be added in the transportation section. In my 20 years of having lived in New York I have only went on the Brooklyn Bridge a few times. The BB is more of a tourist icon than anything else. To me the GW bridge being the busiest bridge in the world is far more significant transportation-wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As this article does not have a single picture of anything Staten Island related, why don't we go with the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge? Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is was a Robert Moses project, and that makes it symbolic of perhaps the most influential part of 20th Century New York history. NYCRuss ☎ 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to reduce pictures, how about eliminating the four Cityscape pictures? The existing pictures already present a Manhattan-centric view of the city, and these make it even more so. NYCRuss ☎ 14:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to reduce pictures per se, I want to reduce clutter and sloppiness, and often that means actually reducing pictures, although another solution would be shrinking them and then rearranging their positions. I think the Cityscape panoramas, although Manhattan-centric, are a fine gallery that should be kept, and they are neatly organized and aligned so they dont create any clutter or sloppiness whatsoever.Cadiomals (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NYCRuss. These pictures are huge and 4 skylines of Manhattan are overkill. Images over 300px should be used sparingly if at all. I'd get rid of 3 if not all 4, maybe keep the third if we need to have one. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How about just one panorama-mode skyline picture? Castncoot (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think those four pictures beautifully illustrate Manhattan, but maybe they are too big. Keep in mind that New York is a huge city that doesn't just have one little skyline, and also looks very different between day and night, so I don't think one panoramic daytime picture would be as visually informative. Maybe we can compromise and shrink the images by about half so they are in a two-by-two arrangement? Cadiomals (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding pictures to make this less Manhattan-centric, without adding clutter

There are too few pictures relating to the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. There is also a consensus that there is clutter in the article. Excluding the montage, this is how it is:

• For the Bronx, we have a picture of Fordham University and of Yankee Stadium.
• The one picture of Brooklyn is of restaurants in Brooklyn Heights.
• Queens is represented by the U.S. Open and JFK's Terminal 5.
• Staten Island has the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

One obvious way to change this would be to add a picture of brownstones in Brooklyn. The problem with that is that all such pictures on Wikipedia are not very good. Here are some pictures (in addition to the one of three bridges posted above) that we might want to consider:

Fort Wadsworth in Staten Island

Sailors' Snug Harbor in Staten Island

Brooklyn Borough Hall

The Queens County Courthouse

Bronx Zoo

So, how do we make the choice of pictures more representative of the city as a whole, while providing the best encyclopedic value, and without adding clutter? NYCRuss ☎ 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that this article is too Manhattan-centric and should focus more on the other boroughs which each have their own identities and cultures, even one as boring as Staten Island. So I support your idea. I think to do this we can get rid of the least important information pertaining to Manhattan so we can make more room for the other four boroughs. Cadiomals (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us to decide on what's "fair". At lot of what is notable about NY in reliable sources happens to be Manhattan related. If we shouldn't have the Stonewall Inn because of POV and and undue weight and illustration, that goes even more so for the Queens County Courthouse, which isn't extraordinarily notable as a building or for an event there in the context of an article about NYC as a whole (it might be good for the Queens article, just like the Stonewall Inn might be good for the Greenwich Village and LGBT history in the United States articles). The Borough Hall pic is great for Brooklyn but doesn't reach the level of citywide importance necessary for this citywide article. The Bronx Zoo is of citywide importance but the pic is just of a sign. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand your point of view. We should only put the most notable points of interest and most of them happen to be in Manhattan. But we should also double-check to make sure all the most notable points of interest in the other four boroughs are thoroughly covered too (Bronx Zoo, Citi field, Yankee Stadium, etc.) I think they already are. I don't think the readers would really care for the Queens Country Courthouse either. Cadiomals (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article?

Is anyone else interested in getting this to good article status or maybe even featured article status again? Since it is one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia (an average of 20k views a day), it should be the best it can be. If someone could help by pin-pointing all the problems that keep this article from at least a good article status I could get to work right away trying to fix it. But I don't know where to start. Also, how do you get an article re-reviewed for GA status? Cadiomals (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, one way would be not to remove longstanding salient historical images such as of the Stonewall Rebellion and not to selectively remove images of certain baseball teams and bridges without any apparent discriminate logic, while leaving cheese pizza intact. Images have therefore been restored. Castncoot (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you actually look at the message above regarding just that, I provide a full rationale of why I selected these images for removal, and there have already been users who agree with me but are unsure of which images can be removed. You make it seem as though I'm trying to sabotage this article when my contributions are in complete good faith. Besides, your reply to this message does not even address what I'm talking about, its just sounds like a bitter attack on my person. Maybe your reply would been more relevant one message up. Cadiomals (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly no attack on the person, I don't even know or care who you are - but certainly a deep questioning of the logic and judgement used in the specific edits involved. I'm also not quite sure what people think of the Ellis Island monument picture replacing the previous picture of the Statue of Liberty with the former Twin Towers in the background - personally, I preferred the other picture. And you may have gone just a bit overboard in the de-linking of the lede. Castncoot (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"a deep questioning of the logic and judgement used"

Is it really that hard to see why I removed some images? There were getting to be too many. The text was becoming cramped and the article was beginning to look sloppy and disorganized. We can't expect to add every image of something we think is important, we have to select only the most significant images. New York style pizza is a cuisine that is unique to that city, and it is the only picture in that section. Allow me to simply copy and paste my reply to the message above to this one for my rationale on everything else:

I honestly don't care which images are chosen to stay or go as long as in the end no more images are added. The reason I chose the GW bridge to stay was because it is the busiest bridge in the world, so it may be more significant. The reason I removed Citi field as opposed to Yankee stadium was because I didn't want two similar images of baseball fields to take up room next to each other, and the Yankees are simply more famous than the Mets. I also removed the US open picture because we already had a picture of a sports field (Yankee stadium) and I didn't want two similar pictures, so I chose to keep the marathon pic for more variety. I just don't want pictures taking up so much room and squishing the text, it's an eyesore. And we can't include everything. In terms of the Brooklyn Bridge, I honestly don't care for it to be added in the transportation section. In my 20 years of having lived in New York I have only went on the Brooklyn Bridge a few times. The BB is more of a tourist icon than anything else. To me the GW bridge being the busiest bridge in the world is far more significant transportation-wise. Cadiomals (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Stonewall image is not "longstanding", it was forced in despite consensus just last May by replacing a previous image of Battery Weed. It needs to go. So should the pizza. I have it on good authority that people in other cities already know what pizza looks like. Station1 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the pizza, Station1 (talk) - the pizza should go. However, nearly three-quarters of a year qualifies as longstanding by Wikipedia time standards, and furthermore, the Stonewall image was maintained for good only after thorough vetting in the Talk section - check out the archives - and needs to stay. Stonewall represents a chronicle and a milestone in the City's history to the same extent as any other event, with the only more powerful exception being 9/11, of course. Castncoot (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it's been removed by at least 3 separate editors and added by no one but you (4 times). No one supported it on the talk page except you. As important as Stonewall was to the gay rights movement - and it was important - to say that in the entire history of the entire city of New York this was second only to 9/11 is frankly ridiculous. It's not even an image of the riot, it's just a building. There is no consensus for this image in this article. Station1 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, check out the Talk archives for this article and you'll see the history of how it evolved and finally arrived at its present (modified) state by consensus after lack of opposition to a modified statement over an ample trial period. No one stated that this event and only this event was uniquely second to 9/11, only that none of the other featured images in the article (barring 9/11) represent events necessarily any MORE significant and far-reaching than Stonewall. Finally, the building is the Stonewall Inn, and the captioned reference cannot allude more clearly to the Stonewall Rebellion.Castncoot (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, what am I missing? I'm looking at Archive 13 and see a conversation between you and one other editor who strongly disagrees with you. You've been reverted 3 times so far. And if you think the 1664 British annexation of New Amsterdam, the Battle of Long Island, or the erection of midtown skyscapers in the 20th century are not of greater consequence to the overall history and development of New York (the topic of the article) than Stonewall, I don't think you'll find consensus for that either. Station1 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, what you appear to be missing is the fact that the caption was changed to eliminate the other editor's objection on the discussion page, which obtained his apparent subsequent agreement, generating no subsequent opposition from him(her) or anyone else for a relatively generous period of time before then being restored into the article in its modified form. The caption is absolutely neutral, relevant, factually accurate, and well-cited. And yes, Stonewall has been far more consequential and relevant not only to present-day NYC but also to today's world than say, the Battle of Long Island, the addition of whose image has been much more recent, to say the least.Castncoot (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about New York City. Stonewall is less relevant to the history of the City than the Battle of Long Island.NYCRuss ☎ 14:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's more a matter of opinion than the fact that they indeed are both relevant and significant to the history of the City itself. At least the Stonewall image has a valid citation. Fortunately, I think we're good now with the steps that have been taken to relieve the perceived image space crunch - that's the bigger "picture" here, pun fully intended. Castncoot (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Stonewall image is still creating formatting issues. The history section has one picture too many, and that seems to me top be the least significant one. I believe that it should be removed. NYCRuss ☎ 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I see it's been moved to an irrelevant section, but it still needs to come out of the article. Few if any historians would agree that the Stonewall riots were more important than the Battle of Long Island (I could explain why but it would involve a long digression), and just because someone doesn't get in the last word on a talk page doesn't mean they've changed their opinion from disagree to agree. The Battle of Long Island pic at least shows part of the battle, whereas the Stonewall pic just shows the building years later, but the Battle pic can come out too as far as I'm concerned, because it also doesn't convey any unique info that isn't present in the text (btw, Stonewall does deserve a sentence in the text; there's no problem with the caption itself). Station1 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep the Stonewall image in the history section. It shouldnt have been even moved out of the history section because its a very important part of the city's history itself. In no small part it is responsible for gay marriage being approved in New York City and New York State. So it has actually affected official city and state law, which affects everybody. It is appropriaetly and neutrally captioned and the building is an official historical landmark. So there simply is no POV issue here. I believe it should go back to the history section. 74.88.160.244 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a picture of a cluster of restaurants in Brooklyn Heights where the picture of pizza was. I believe that this makes the article better representative of the city as a whole, and that is relevant to where it is placed. NYCRuss ☎ 14:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's better than pizza (well, better than a picture of pizza), but it really is kind of a generic street scene, used for illustration rather than to show something unique about NY. It could really be almost anywhere and I don't think we absolutely must have a photo there. Station1 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad I was able to trigger discussion and action regarding one of the numerous problems this article has. Now the article as a whole just seems cleaner and more organized with a few less significant images removed. However, I still don't think two very similar looking (and fairly large) images of bridges should be pictured next to each other. The transportation section is another section that has one too many images. Even the important subway pic tossed to the left throws the section off balance. I don't care which one you pick, I think one bridge should be tossed out. If you choose to keep the Verrazano I wouldn't care. Cadiomals (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think the picture shouldn't be so tall. Here are a few suggestions for alternative images that aren't so tall.

• 
• 
• 

If we add one of these we can make enough room to move the subway pic to the right so the section is balanced. If these aren't satisfactory, you can always look for more at Wikimedia Commons. Cadiomals (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE ON IMAGE CHANGE: I don't think including Fort Wadsworth in the picture makes any sense at all and is irrelevant to the transportation section. I still think you should choose one of the images above. Cadiomals (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I personally prefer the third one.Castncoot (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if I can reply (edit conflicts.) I changed it to one of the others. I just found this one that I like:

• 

Toughts? NYCRuss ☎ 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I just replaced the image with this last one in the article, although the nighttime one still appeals to me the most, especially as there is no other nighttime bridge image in the article. What do others think? Castncoot (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The current one is too far away, the reader will be unable to clearly see the bridge. Close-ups that allow the reader to see distinguishing features are always the best, and I agree that the nighttime should be added (its pretty) Cadiomals (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Castncoot (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The night time scene looks good. NYCRuss ☎ 21:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2012

Please change the picture caption New Amsterdam in 1664, the year Britain took control and renamed it "New York" to New Amsterdam in 1664, the year England took control and renamed it "New York". This is because Britain only came into existence in 1707 by the Act of Union. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_formation_of_the_United_Kingdom

86.31.209.20 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Cadiomals (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not much point in switching it back now, but Britain certainly existed before 1707, just not as a unified political entity. Wales and England were unified in the sixteenth century, so just saying "England" isn't entirely correct either. Powers ^T 22:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that the political unit WAS called "The Kingdom of England". Wales, sadly, had no part in the name, so it is proper to refer to it, short-form, as "England". "Great Britain" existed, but not as a country. That came later, with the Kingdom of Great Britain. --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make a big deal of this and get technical, guys. In common language "Britain" and "England" are the same, so there's no point in even discussing it, especially for a small caption.Cadiomals (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Except there's a definite difference. For example, no one should say the United States declared independence from either England or the United Kingdom, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain at the time. Just because people incorrectly use England as a name for the entire country (and Holland for another country, etc.) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow suit. --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Winter Climate

On the article it says that winters are cold and damp. The word damp means humid and cloudy. New York City has plenty of winter sunshine and is not nowhere damp at all. More than half of the winter days are sunny. It should say 'Generally cold' because it's not always guaranteed cold. Many days are pretty mild.--74.90.5.246 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First, didn't someone bring this up already? Second, here's what Google says, and none of the definitions given say "humid and cloudy"...

Adjective: Slightly wet: "her hair was still damp from the shower".

Noun: Moisture diffused through the air or a solid substance or condensed on a surface, typically with detrimental or unpleasant effects.

Verb: Make (something) slightly wet: "damp a small area with water".

Synonyms: adjective. moist - humid - wet - dank - dabby - soggy; noun. moisture - humidity - dampness - wet - wetness; verb. dampen - moisten - wet

Famartin (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that is should be plain "cold" and get rid of the word 'damp'. I agree it should say 'generally cold' which describes NYC excellent way for the winter. It's certainly not damp the whole winter. --Maydin37622 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured cities

I think if we ever want New York City to have a good or featured article, we should probably try modeling it after city articles that do have GA or FA status, which include (just from me looking around) but aren't limited to: Houston, Seattle, Detroit, London, etc. I suggest we try checking out those articles to figure out what puts them at GA or FA status and model this one after them. it may be a good idea. Cadiomals (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What does New York City article not have, or missing, and the difference, between the other cities you mentioned? --Maydin37622 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2012

79.141.2.154 (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)