Talk:New York City

No sports section

I noticed there was no sports section, unlike most other major cities. Is there a reason for this? Sumdood2798 (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a sports section; it is a subsection of Culture. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Sumdood2798 (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

💀 Cleter (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

PATH

Just so that we're on the same page, this is not a "critical part of New York City's history":

The World Trade Center PATH station, which had opened on July 19, 1909, as the Hudson Terminal, was destroyed in the attacks. A temporary station was built and opened in 2003 and a 800,000-square-foot (74,000 m2) permanent rail station designed by Santiago Calatrava, the World Trade Center Transportation Hub, the city's third-largest hub, was completed in 2016.

Also, I'm visiting the city in a couple of weeks, so I can expect to be treated as a savant upon my return. That is how it works, right? Seasider53 (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53 Do you mean to say this paragraph should be deleted? Chronus (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Seasider53 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that NYC has only been a featured article, not a good article, despite it being nominated a couple of times in the last 20 years. It's obvious why, given its poor state until recently, but maybe it's time to try again with the changes made. Seasider53 (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It has previously been both an FA and a GA. It was demoted from FA status in 2010 and delisted as a GA in 2013. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead too long

A discussion was happening here regarding article ledes, and this article was specifically mentioned as a case where through accretion, the lead went from being near-ideal to too long. I agree, so I figured I'd drop a topic here about it. Remsense留 02:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

For reference, here is the state of the article when it was demoted from featured status. I think it is four full paragraphs mostly touching on the correct things, but I will gladly concede that maybe they can be two full and two stuffed paragraphs. Remsense留 06:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me shorten it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I made my edit at Special:Diff/1190307831. Here's the edit summary as promised:

• Removed "one of the world's largest natural harbors". Not true, as Hamburg's harbor is much bigger and has a much more extensive port. As this is not the objectively defining feature of NYC, it is not due to put that in the first sentence of the lead. I'm open to mention that somewhere else in the lead though, but for now, it has to go.
• Listed the district names.
• Added [by whom], because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
• Removed "NYC has more than double the population of Los Angeles, the nation's second-most populous city. New York is the geographical and demographic center of both the Northeast megalopolis and the New York metropolitan area, the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. by both population and urban area." I removed this because we have already established that NYC is a populous city in the first sentence. Keep that in the article body though.
• Removed "making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world", can be inferred from the >800 languages stats
• Removed "If the New York metropolitan area were its own country, it would have the tenth-largest economy in the world." I do understand the need to communicate scale to the reader, but this sentence feels trivia-y and also comparing GDP of a city against GDP of a country is somewhat misleading. I'm open to adding this sentence back however.
• Removed "New York City is an established safe haven for global investors.", cited to an unreliable source. Also this can be inferred from the paragraph
• Moved "New York City is the most expensive city in the world for expatriates to live." from fourth to second paragraph. It makes sense as the fourth paragraph is about NYC's economy and the second paragraph is about NYC's population.

- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• • The cutting is done. It's been cut even after Remsense had made their comments above. It's been cut several times, and now we're down to bone. You in particular don't have NYC topic experience and clearly have no idea what you're doing. I know you've tried this before, but unfortunately, despite your good faith efforts I'm sure, you do a very poor job every time, and this time is no different. This article is about the most complex city in the world, and so yes, all around it will be longer. Much simpler and much more homogeneous cities like Hanoi, for example, can have leads one-third this long. Not NYC. Castncoot (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

    Ha ha, down to the bone. It's not. It's amazing how little the lead is communicating to the reader with so many words. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

    Recalling previous conversations, it seems that you do not want to work with me. Fine. Just please stop denying that NYC's lead is too long and stop exhibiting ownership behaviors when things do not go your way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

    I was checking the history of the page and saw your edits, and couldn't comprehend why they were reverted. I've kept your changes and would like to express my thanks for your contributions towards the NYC page. I don't think the existing thanks feature works - if it does, I want to express my thanks properly anyway. Cutting down the lead is a headache to work with and what you did was brilliant. Cavoodles (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you so much in return - CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of these cuts look good, I would quibble on a few that seem somewhat overly extensive. New York Harbor is a critical geographical feature to NY history and its economic role. It may not be the largest harbor, but size is not really what we're going for, it's significance. It can be reworded to include something about the harbor, that is true, and reasonably relevant. Similarly, to the GDP stats, I would emphasize these more, because NYC's role as a center of global finance is one of its major reasons for hegemony over the American Northeast when it comes to shipping, and later banking, Wall Street, is synonymous with American and indeed global finance. The comparison of a city to a country is very common in the sources. Andre🚐 05:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Could we compare NYC's GDP with other cities though? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure. We could. It gets tricky to do apples to apples because of metro areas. That's why the cities to nations comparison is used, I'm positing. e.g. [1] I'm fairly confident NY is still the top world city by GDP or #2, but when you do metro area, I think Tokyo is bigger. Andre🚐 07:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• For the port, something like, the largest port in the USA by cargo volume, ie freight imports and exports. Yea or nay, what say ye [2] Andre🚐

• There needs to be one more paragraph in the lede discussing the city’s culture and notable sites more specifically, as other city pages have. There seems to be an agenda against cultural pages pertaining to the U.S. or America on Wikipedia. Threefrgy

19:59, 03 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the Statue of Liberty both part of the city's history and also a landmark?

User:Nikkimaria has repeatedly removed content regarding the Statue of Liberty, most recently tagging the article with a copy edit tag, arguing that there is "repetition of content". In this edit, Nikkimaria removed a sentence about the statue welcoming immigrants; I reinserted the material here, as the details of the significance of the statue to immigrants was a pivotal role of the statue.. Nikkimaria removed this again here saying it "Already appears below"; The material was reinserted here, with additional material explaining the role that the statue played as a symbol to immigrants.. In response, Nikkimaria in this edit, Nikkimaria removed the Statue of Liberty as a landmark, with the edit summary "rm dup".

Nikkimaria seems to be arguing that the Statue of Liberty can only be in the history section OR listed as a landmark and that we have to choose one or the other. My position is that it is a fundamental fact that the Statue of Liberty is recognized both as a symbol to immigrants during the ‎Late 19th and early 20th century AND that it remains as a fundamental landmark. What does the community think? Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not my position. My argument is that we should not be repeating exactly the same material about the statue in multiple sections. We are doing less now, but we're still repeating the bit about "ideals of liberty and peace" in two sections (plus an image caption).

However, this is not the only instance of repetition of content, so a broader review to address this issue is warranted. Other examples include the "New York minute", being the setting for films and TV programs, and Madison Avenue being metonymous for advertising. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, It's hard to take that position seriously after this edit, in which you removed any mention whatsoever of the Statue of Liberty as a landmark, which did not serve any constructive purpose? If you have a genuine interest in avoiding repetition of exactly the same material, why not show some small measure of good faith by editing the material to make it sufficiently different, rather than simply removing the material out of spite? If you are genuinely building an encyclopedic article about New York City, surely you must agree that the Statue of Liberty is a landmark and that the removal of that detail from a section about landmarks was inherently disruptive? Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not a section about landmarks, it's a section about tourism. With or without that sentence, the section doesn't mention most major landmarks.

Greater improvement would be achieved by removing/relocating that whole paragraph, since neither "New York Minute" nor the use of the Empire State Building as a measuring stick is relevant to tourism, and there is already reference to landmarks in the preceding paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. The Empire State Building is relevant to tourism, as art deco architecture is one of the main tourism draws. Andre🚐 04:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve never heard this. Do you have any information to support it? Seasider53 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole article on it Art Deco architecture of New York City. It's more of common knowledge than that I'm pulling it from any particular source, but surely one could be found easily. The best one I found on a cursory look was this: [3] Andre🚐 04:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The claim in that paragraph isn't about its architecture, or anything to do with its tourism draw - it's about it being used as a unit of measure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That I agree may be trivial or silly, but a fun factoid. Andre🚐 04:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Alan, the Statue of Liberty, and its welcoming immigrants, are two of the most critically important aspects of New York City. I know it personally firsthand as my ancestors came through Ellis Island. Andre🚐 03:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

All landmarks are part of a city's history, and are imbued with intentional and acquired meaning. I would keep that in mind when thinking about potential redundancies. Remsense留 03:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Very true, but the Statue of Liberty is a renowned symbol of New York City. It appeared on the NY license plate for a number of years, it was also used in a version of the NY logo. Just about the only more common and recognizable symbols are the I <3 NY logo and the NY Yankees logo. Andre🚐 04:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This is true to some degree with many landmarks that are seen as emblems of their city, is the overall point I'm making. The meaning imbued in the landmark doesn't necessarily need to be presented on its own from the landmark itself. Remsense留 04:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a good point, but, the Statue of Liberty moreso than any random stadium. It was a gift to the US from France to symbolize that alliance, the poem is relevant, "tired masses, huddled, yearning to breathe free," and the period of time during NYC's major boom and growth was due to immigration in the 1800s and early 1900s. It's one of the most relevant things to New York City. In my very humble opinion as a highly biased person as a NYer from NYers from NYers. Andre🚐 04:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's a justification for viewing NYC as unique compared to any other world city here. One could be equally romantic about the Eiffel Tower or Tiananmen Square. Remsense留 04:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Again biased but again disagree and I think a case can be made there. NYC is uniquely important to the American economy. I mean, yes, comparable to say London or Tokyo or Paris, but not any world city, it's in the elite top 5 to be sure, on most metrics that I know of. But I get what you mean. However, I do think there is a very significant source-based case for NYC exceptionalism on many things. Specifically as pertaining to the Statue of Liberty - as a landmark, it's not unlike a modern Seven Wonders of the World. In fact I believe it is a direct architectural homage to the Colossus, if I'm not mistaken. Andre🚐 04:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Compare the article Rio de Janeiro which prominetly features Cristo Redentor. Andre🚐 07:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The statue is only mentioned in the text once. My quibble was with potentially reduplicated mentions because of the cultural importance of a landmark being treated as a topic in itself, in addition to the landmark as a physical object/place. I think they would ideally be mentioned together, giving an adequate, holistic description of the landmark. Remsense留 08:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Having looked over both sections and comparing their current state to what they were before the edit warring, I see an improvement now in how the welcoming of immigrants bit was removed from the tourism section, since this information was repetitious and not needed there. I don't have a problem with liberty and peace though, because it's shorter, it was the original intent of the statue's donors, and it's more generic info that could apply to both sections. StonyBrook _babble 18:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Historic population table

I just looked back at the table when New York City was the featured article and — I'm sure we're all shocked to hear this — the table was much shorter than it is now. Why do we need it broken down by decade for every century, especially when significant fluctuations have rarely happened? Seasider53 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Although I restored that table (which apparently has no [Hide] default) after @Nikkimaria:'s good-faith removal. I'm looking from the other direction and wondering how important those percentage changes in the second column are in a general article, as opposed to the Demography subarticle.

Perhaps we need to create our own single-column collapsible outside-the-template chart, pre-set at either Show or Hide. See also @Moxy:'s quotation from Wikipedia:Summary style in the #Climate chart/weatherbox discussion on this Talk Page:

"...overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles..."

@Uness232:—— Shakescene (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the level of detail is more appropriate to the subarticle. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just delated that table altogether because it gives inconsistent numbers: in some years for what is now the Five-Borough city, sometimes just for the old pre-consolidation city (Manhattan or Manhattan + all or part of what is now The Bronx}. For an article about the City as a whole, Mahhattan's population in, say, 1840 is a relatively-trivial detail. Fortunately, the U.S. Census worked this out about a century ago — for example, peeling off and including the bits of then-Westchester County that now lie within the Bronx, so that there is a consistent population total from the first U.S. Census in 1790 to the present. See the references in User talk:Shakescene#Census.

It's certainly straightforward though tedious to create a stand-alone one-column table with consistent coverage (at least since 1790), but I'm not up to trying that now.

Cheers to @Nikkimaria, Seasider53, Moxy, and Uness232: and all. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Population of 5-borough area 1790—2020
Year	Population
1790	49,401
1800	79,216
1810	119,734
1820	152,056
1830	242,278
1840	391,114
1850	696,115
1860	1,174,779
1870	1,478,103
1880	1,911,698
1890	2,507,414
1900	3,437,202
1910	4,766,883
1920	5,620,048
1930	6,930,446
1940	7,454,995
1950	7,891,957
1960	7,781,984
1970	7,894,862
1980	7,071,639
1990	7,322,564
2000	8,008,288
2010	8,175,133
2020	8,804,190

Here's my proposed single-column table (no % change), with the Census' numbers for the current five-borough area. (References and citations to be added). We need a consistent area (which we can't do before the First Census of 1790) to avoid a highly-misleading jump (+125%) from the then-unconsolidated City in 1890 to the City of Greater New York in 1900. (If necessary, any or all of the four earlier estimates before 1790 can be mentioned in the prose text.) —— Shakescene (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC) @Nikkimaria, Alansohn, Seasider53, and Moxy:

• If you want to use only census data from 1790, then this is a breathtakingly unnecessary effort to override the functionality of Template:US Census population, which is prescribed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and used in virtually every article for every American city, from the largest to the smallest, across the nation. It even includes functionality to include explanatory notes if there has been a territorial change; there is no "highly-misleading jump" from 1890 to 1900, there is a change in the size of the city, something that happens and has happened nationwide and something that is thoroughly explained in the article. It has been used in cities that grew in size over the years and those that have shrunk. The United State Census Bureau has the data available from 1790 to 1990 at this source. Why are we reinventing the wheel, arguing about trivialities and failing to follow the basic consensus followed across the country in thousands upon thousands of articles? Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• If that template was used to present the data given in Shakescene's table, would you both be happy with that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• With appropriate sources and notes describing changes in territory, of course. And, Nikkimaria, I assume that the resulting reduction in article size of 237 characters would have you calling for a ticker tape parade along the Canyon of Heroes? Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Shakescene: could you provide the sources you used? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Briefly, see User_talk:Shakescene#Census, where I cite the Encyclopedia of NYC. (Similar figures appear in some World Almanacs that I no longer own and in

  Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790 to 1990/From the Twenty-one Decennial Censuses/March 1996/U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/BUREAU OF THE CENSUS/.../Compiled and edited by Richard L. Forstall)

  I wasn't planning to post this on the article page without citations. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, but if you could provide the full citations, I can post a version using the template proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Alansohn speaking of citations, please see reference number 223 in the article. It has an error message, likely stemming from your recent changes. 13:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Seasider53 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Britain did not exist until 1707

The article states that New York came under British Control in 1664. This is impossible since Britain did not come into existence until 1707. Hence it came under English control. 2A02:1811:424:B800:5320:429:8728:B2E6 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate chart/weatherbox

@Shakescene Thank you for the kind and civil explanation on your revert; I definitely understand the complex nature of the detailed climate chart. My issue with the simplified one is that it leaves out information that is, in my opinion, too important for the city to be left to the climate article (like precipitation days, snowfall and sunshine), as well as the fact that depending on the screen resolution, it does not even appear alongside the climate section.

Maybe we can find a compromise in something similar to the climate chart on the Istanbul page (compare Climate of Istanbul#Inland from the Bosporus (detailed) to the main article (simplified)); leaving behind record temperatures, annual mean max mins, relative humidity, dew points etc. Would that be good enough? Uness232 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In my view...... As a major super city this article should look like a country article because of all the sub articles affiliated with the topic. Wikipedia:Summary style As prose text is preferred overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS. Moxy- 23:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, however I am still uncomfortable with removing something that provides what I think of as important info (especially for a city with a transitional, not entirely agreed-upon climate) and is a pretty standard inclusion in other large cities like Tokyo, Paris and such, whether they have climate pages or not. The simplified weatherbox also has problems as it moves with photos on the right side of the page, and may not align with the climate section depending on your resolution. Uness232 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A country has many different climates. NYC has one essential climate with minor variations within. Also, [4] (see climate section) is very different from its Canadian counterpart, [5]. We should stick to the established guidelines standard for U.S. city articles, the overwhelming preponderance of which contain a weatherbox on the main page. Castncoot (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand, or perhaps the confusion arises from me using climate chart/weatherbox interchangeably, which I shouldn't have done; but I was arguing for the removal of the simplified template that you did remove recently, and the addition of a somewhat simplified version of the template that Shakescene was opposing, so I don't exactly understand your stance (or why you replied to me) here. Is it that you want the full, detailed weatherbox?

By the way, what I meant by transitional climate was more technical and referred to Köppen, not that the city has many microclimates. Uness232 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see restoration of the standard full weatherbox that has been there and at most major U.S. city articles since time immemorial. Castncoot (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; the simplified box was a compromise I offered in response to Shakescene. However, I do see his point to some extent; the weatherbox is highly detailed and includes detail that would not interest the average reader, and those interested could quite simply go to the Climate of New York City article. The weatherbox could be reduced to more essential pieces of data, while a more complete box is moved to the Climate of- page.

This process could also be repeated, if necessary, in other large cities with Climate of- pages (or not, if thought unnecessary in that context). As far as I understand, the guidelines for climate sections do not mention what needs to be included in a graph; so I don't see how the guideline would be an obstacle to this if consensus is obtained here. Uness232 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@The 19th One: normally WP:BRD would apply (although it is not mandated), but that page speaks about reverting an edit by a single user, whereas this involves more than one. Since one user can't be addressed on their talk page directly, the discussion would happen here. Seasider53 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Seasider53 I see. I'm sorry that I misunderstood the rules.

I also got an idea for a compromise.

Maybe we can include the weather box in this article, but have it automatically collapsed? I have noticed that many other city pages do this. This way there would not be too much clutter on the weather section, while the precise data is sill visible for those who are interested in it.

Does this sound good? The 19th One (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, though I'm not sure if that addresses the original concern; which was not that there was too much clutter, but rather that the weatherbox itself was too complex. Uness232 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This may also be partly why the article became infinitely too large until the recent reduction by several editors, in that: "Well, Los Angeles' article is this size, so I will endeavor to make the New York one even bigger, because I think it deserves to be." Yes, a weather box won't affect things greatly, but the principle is the same. Seasider53 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A complete removal of the weatherbox, however, will deprive readers of some of the most necessary climate information, precluding even a simple comparison between cities. We can not even list the mean temperature of every month in prose (I suppose we could if we wanted to increase superfluous text); we need a weatherbox for that. Uness232 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My syntax skills for autocollapse, etc., are rusty but this is what one trial would look like:

Extended content

Climate data for New York (Belvedere Castle, Central Park), 1991–2020 normals, extremes 1869–present Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Record high °F (°C) 72 (22) 78 (26) 86 (30) 96 (36) 99 (37) 101 (38) 106 (41) 104 (40) 102 (39) 94 (34) 84 (29) 75 (24) 106 (41) Mean maximum °F (°C) 60.4 (15.8) 60.7 (15.9) 70.3 (21.3) 82.9 (28.3) 88.5 (31.4) 92.1 (33.4) 95.7 (35.4) 93.4 (34.1) 89.0 (31.7) 79.7 (26.5) 70.7 (21.5) 62.9 (17.2) 97.0 (36.1) Mean daily maximum °F (°C) 39.5 (4.2) 42.2 (5.7) 49.9 (9.9) 61.8 (16.6) 71.4 (21.9) 79.7 (26.5) 84.9 (29.4) 83.3 (28.5) 76.2 (24.6) 64.5 (18.1) 54.0 (12.2) 44.3 (6.8) 62.6 (17.0) Daily mean °F (°C) 33.7 (0.9) 35.9 (2.2) 42.8 (6.0) 53.7 (12.1) 63.2 (17.3) 72.0 (22.2) 77.5 (25.3) 76.1 (24.5) 69.2 (20.7) 57.9 (14.4) 48.0 (8.9) 39.1 (3.9) 55.8 (13.2) Mean daily minimum °F (°C) 27.9 (−2.3) 29.5 (−1.4) 35.8 (2.1) 45.5 (7.5) 55.0 (12.8) 64.4 (18.0) 70.1 (21.2) 68.9 (20.5) 62.3 (16.8) 51.4 (10.8) 42.0 (5.6) 33.8 (1.0) 48.9 (9.4) Mean minimum °F (°C) 9.8 (−12.3) 12.7 (−10.7) 19.7 (−6.8) 32.8 (0.4) 43.9 (6.6) 52.7 (11.5) 61.8 (16.6) 60.3 (15.7) 50.2 (10.1) 38.4 (3.6) 27.7 (−2.4) 18.0 (−7.8) 7.7 (−13.5) Record low °F (°C) −6 (−21) −15 (−26) 3 (−16) 12 (−11) 32 (0) 44 (7) 52 (11) 50 (10) 39 (4) 28 (−2) 5 (−15) −13 (−25) −15 (−26) Average precipitation inches (mm) 3.64 (92) 3.19 (81) 4.29 (109) 4.09 (104) 3.96 (101) 4.54 (115) 4.60 (117) 4.56 (116) 4.31 (109) 4.38 (111) 3.58 (91) 4.38 (111) 49.52 (1,258) Average snowfall inches (cm) 8.8 (22) 10.1 (26) 5.0 (13) 0.4 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.25) 0.5 (1.3) 4.9 (12) 29.8 (76) Average extreme snow depth inches (cm) 5.8 (15) 7.9 (20) 4.4 (11) 0.4 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (1.0) 3.7 (9.4) 12.3 (31) Average precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in) 10.8 10.0 11.1 11.4 11.5 11.2 10.5 10.0 8.8 9.5 9.2 11.4 125.4 Average snowy days (≥ 0.1 in) 3.7 3.2 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 11.4 Average relative humidity (%) 61.5 60.2 58.5 55.3 62.7 65.2 64.2 66.0 67.8 65.6 64.6 64.1 63.0 Average dew point °F (°C) 18.0 (−7.8) 19.0 (−7.2) 25.9 (−3.4) 34.0 (1.1) 47.3 (8.5) 57.4 (14.1) 61.9 (16.6) 62.1 (16.7) 55.6 (13.1) 44.1 (6.7) 34.0 (1.1) 24.6 (−4.1) 40.3 (4.6) Mean monthly sunshine hours 162.7 163.1 212.5 225.6 256.6 257.3 268.2 268.2 219.3 211.2 151.0 139.0 2,534.7 Percent possible sunshine 54 55 57 57 57 57 59 63 59 61 51 48 57 Average ultraviolet index 2 3 4 6 7 8 8 8 6 4 2 1 5 Source 1: NOAA (relative humidity and sun 1961–1990; dew point 1965–1984) Source 2: Weather Atlas. Sea temperature data for New York Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Average sea temperature °F (°C) 41.7 (5.4) 39.7 (4.3) 40.2 (4.5) 45.1 (7.3) 52.5 (11.4) 64.5 (18.1) 72.1 (22.3) 74.1 (23.4) 70.1 (21.2) 63.0 (17.2) 54.3 (12.4) 47.2 (8.4) 55.4 (13.0) /collapse

Presumably, the internal footnotes would anchor in the References section of the whole NUYC article, rather than the way they do on this Talk Page.

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that weatherboxes are usually collapsed in-template, so something like this:

Climate data for New York (Belvedere Castle, Central Park), 1991–2020 normals
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Daily mean °F (°C)	33.7 (0.9)	35.9 (2.2)	42.8 (6.0)	53.7 (12.1)	63.2 (17.3)	72.0 (22.2)	77.5 (25.3)	76.1 (24.5)	69.2 (20.7)	57.9 (14.4)	48.0 (8.9)	39.1 (3.9)	55.8 (13.2)
Source: NOAA

Though I remember your line of argumentation being about "those big ugly weatherboxes [being] too intimidating". I do not know how collapsing the weatherbox would improve readability of climate data as we would simply be hiding away information, not simplifying it. Uness232 (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments @Uness232:

(1) Upon reflection, I realized that in 15 years of editing NYC articles (most notably at The Bronx) and looking at articles about other places, I've never (until this question came up here) even looked at the contents of any of those boxes. One should never argue over aesthetics, but I'm driven away by the color scheme (resembling a nightmare painting by Van Gogh or Edward Munch's The Scream) and intimidated by what seems to be complex detail. And if it drives me away (which of course is hardly the intention of the template's creators), what about the casual general reader who just wants to get an overview of The Big Apple?

(2) There must be someone on this Talk Page who's more experienced at wrangling the complexities of Collapse, Uncollapse, Autocollapse, etc. templates and their syntax. Ironically enough, your collapse opens only one line of the chart, whereas mine opens up to the whole thing.

(3) Some readers, however, will be interested in this kind of detail (the mean daily temperature in July or relative humidity in November), or may want to know more once they read the comments or glance at the small chart. They could open the box and/or go to the Climate of New York City subarticle. Which goes to the main point of this page's minimalists:

(4) Without reading all those WP policy pages, the reader who looks up an article about something so imporrtant and complex as New York City, the Solar System, India, World War II, Economics, Nuclear physics or Christianity can't and won't expect to see every noteworthy fact on one page, as she or he might for a marginal figure like Ardolph Kline, John Woolley or Pussy Galore, but be able at one sitting to grasp a general picture, with guides to the details in the relevant subarticles about, e.g. the Culture of New York City, Lutheranism, Mumbai, the Phillips Curve, Operation Overlord. Quarks or the Kuyper belt.

Regards, —— Shakescene (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

A controversy section

So far this article doesn’t have a controversy I think it would be needed after all New York City is one of the largest cities in the world and I know a lot goes wrong there. If there is a reason for the lack of that section I wanna ask why? Thank you. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Because such sections are generally discouraged - if there are specific controversies that merit inclusion they should be incorporated into the appropriate existing section. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Including"

Wondering what should be a reasonable amount of examples of, say, institutions or businesses given in the prose after the word “including” or “for example”? I’m thinking four would be a fair number. Seasider53 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Seasider53, wondering how you came up with the exact number four, no more, no less, regardless of circumstances or relevance? What would your inclusion criteria be to include the exact four you would allow to appear in the article and exclude all others? Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think four (or three; definitely not five or more) would reduce the chances of readers losing the will to live while perusing the article. It would also reduce the chances of us listing every institution or business after we've written "including" or "for example". Maybe there are only four examples of certain institutions or businesses. Seasider53 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)