Talk:New York City

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, [1] (see climate section) is very different from its Canadian counterpart, [2]. 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)

@Shakescene

1) Then collapsing might be our best option.

2) Because I only put one line of data to collapse, as to not extend the talk page unnecessarily. The parameter is standard and comes with the template itself; you just enter the parameter "collapsed = y" on any weatherbox, however many lines it is.

3,4) Fair. I still oppose the small chart, however, for reasons I've already given. I'm okay with a collapsed weatherbox. Uness232 (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shakescene I have WP:BOLDly reintroduced a collapsed weatherbox; perhaps this looks better? Uness232 (talk) 23:14, 26 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)

Someone didn't copy all the info from the awesome climatebox to the other article

Please make sure information isn't removed from Wikipedia entirely, there's even a reference to humidity in the other article but no humidity info. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Subjectivity

Can we please stop POV-pushing by adding opinions from architecture magazines and the like? If one person disagrees with the opinion, it is patently wrong to state it as fact. Seasider53 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Where is the article on City finances?

One of the biggest deals in the City is its budget. The City has had a rocky history with multiple major financial crises in the nineteenth century, during the Great Depression and in the mid 1970s. How could these facts be excluded? DCDuring (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)