Talk:New York City

Demographics - Religion

"Islam ranks third in New York City, with official estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1,000,000 observers and including 10% of the city's public schoolchildren,[280] followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other religions, as well as atheism."

According to reference 276 (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/29/major-u-s-metropolitan-areas-differ-in-their-religious-profiles/), the Muslim share (as well as the Hindu) is 3%, approximately 250,000 people. As far as I see, there is no reference for "between 600,000 and 1,000,000". -- Artemis Fowl II. (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Colorized Seal

I suggest that we should be using the monochromatic version of the seal - the artist him/herself admits that the version currently in use is purely speculative ("there are no official standards for the seal colors. The version shown here represents the contributor's attempt to use as many historically accurate hues as possible") and the city's Green Book itself only includes a monochromatic version[1]. SixFourThree (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree

Absolutely agree. Any color version is speculative, therefore WP:OR. It cannot remain. oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanx for the information. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Change the title of the page.

I ask respectfully for an administrator to change the title of this page to "New York (city)". The city is officially incorporated as the "City of New York", not "New York City". Let's call the city by its actual name, not a nickname to differentiate it from the U.S. state of New York, and the title of the state of New York's page should be changed to "New York (state)". There are three different entities referred to as "New York": the U.S. state, the U.S. city that is within the territory of the U.S. state, and the borough of Manhattan within the territory of the U.S. city that is referred to in the post as "New York, New York" or "New York, NY". "New York (state)" already redirects to the page "New York" (the page for the U.S. state), "New York (city)" already redirects to the page "New York City" (this page - the page for the U.S. city), and searches on the English Wikipedia for "New York, NY" and "New York, New York" should redirect to the page "Manhattan", not the page "New York City". Give me a handgun that I can carry with me and keep at home. (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. We go with the most common naming convention for the city. El_C 19:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The most common name is New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A) Don't think that is true. B) Even if it is, it's completely ambiguous, and the current title is WP:NATURALDIS. Per existing guidelines and policy, the current title is by far the best for this article, as it's utterly unambiguous. There is no reason to change this title. oknazevad (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

One point here worth considering: why does New York, New York redirect here as opposed to Manhattan? Isn't the use of that referring to New York county, which would be Manhattan, not the entire City? -- rellmerr ^{(talk page • contribs)} 06:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC) never mind, read the archives. -- rellmerr ^{(talk page • contribs)} 06:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverting new layout and new image

Hey @Castncoot:! I am wondering why you changed the edits by me? Firstly, i took out the image of the Korea street, simply due to the fact that Koreans, compared with other minorities, do not play such a major role in the city. There are many other minorities who have way bigger populations. So in case one wants to take a third image, which imho one should not, because it leads to too many pictures, one should take one of another group. Secondly, why did you put the photo of the pride parade to the left? If possible one should align images on the right. In this case i do not see any benefit from aligning it on the left, it also overlaps with the new section of Religion. That is why obviously it fits better on the right side. Thirdly, why did you reincluded the old image of Silicon Valley? The old image is firstly old, and secondly has got a very low quality. Thanks for responding.--Joobo (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joobo, thanks for your message! I would first respectfully take exception to your statement that Koreans don't play a significant role in the city. That is simply not true. To have created quite a formidable business district at the heart of Manhattan is no small feat and requires a) a critical mass (in this case, 100K in the city proper and over 200K in the metro area), b) some level of determination and effort, and c) there are Koreatown, Manhattan and three other freestanding NYC-area Koreatown articles in Wikipedia. Therefore, firstly, it meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. As far as your mention of three images, since New York City's great demographic depth and breadth have ultimately made it the global city that it is, I think three (perhaps even up to four, if split into two pairs of images) would actually be a very appropriate number here. Thirdly, it came down to image quality and availability for both this and the Silicon Alley image (Silicon Valley is actually on the West Coast of the United States) - the K-town image is excellent and clearly demonstrates the Hangul characters - and I couldn't find other such high quality images representative of ethnic groups in New York on Commons. By the way, thank you so much for adding on the Spanish Harlem image! On the other hand, the Silicon Alley image that you put up is actually dark and with less pictorial resolution, and perhaps more importantly, of the landmark Flatiron Building, perhaps the icon best symbolizing Silicon Alley and its nascency in the Flatiron District. But your point that the old picture is outdated is very valid, and I've found a more recent one which clearly highlights the Flatiron Building. Finally, your layout had the LGBT image awkwardly placed. So that was my rationale behind my edits. Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding@Castncoot: . Well i am not saying Koreans are not significant in NYC, i am just saying there are other groups that are notably more significant. To my mind for instance, Italians or Indians would be among them. Of course i agree that the taken image of Koreastreet/town is nice. I would say either one keeps the two images of Chinatown and the image of Spanish Harlem, or one uses 4 images in this way. Yes i meant Silicon Alley of course. Its just the habit-Valley. Ok, i agree taking that picture then. If i am correct the Alley is slightly more leaning to the east from the Building so the image capturing the view is acceptable. Regarding the lgbt image. I do not know what screen you are using, that is also a point to keep in mind. At least to me it fits definitely better on the right side, perhaps we need to ask other users here to give their opinion, how it looks to them, either on the left or right site. What are your thoughts?--Joobo (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the four images used in that way, in fact that's a great idea - but just bear in mind that the pictorial resolution, especially of characters, has to be preserved. Maybe we can add a picture of Little Italy - my only reservation is that the Italian population has all but left - but it's still noteworthy for its history. Or could you obtain and upload an image of Little India on 74th Street between Roosevelt Avenue and 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, Queens? This would represent the fourth ethnic image. Logic dictates that if you are OK with two images and four images, then three should be fine in the meantime. So let's compromise here. You can substitute that Flatiron District image if you like, I'm OK with that, even if I prefer an image that really shows the Flatiron Building more prominently as the iconic symbol of Silicon Alley. I also don't care if the LGBT picture is on the right as long as it corresponds to the proper section. Keep in mind though that it's been on the left for a very long time and that you are the first to bring this up. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed the position of the pride parade image. Also i used the proposed image for the Silicon Alley. Regarding 4 images, we have to see what is available on commons right now. What you say about the Italian community is correct. However it plays still a major role also in the historical context of the city, and well there "still" is a Little Italy. Perhaps one might request for someone to take an image, eventhough that might take time.--Joobo (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on all fronts - except that, just to let you know - the pride image is now smack dab in the Religion section on my screen, and completely outside the Sexual orientation and gender identity section. Are you really seeing it in the correct position on your screen? Castncoot (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On my screen it is no issue, i suppose you are using a widescreen. On my screen it is portrayed that after the map of the ethnic distribution on the right, there comes a part of text witht the same size as the map. Then comes the Image of the parade and again some free space and some text, that is together, sligthly smaller than the image. Then comes the image gallery of Religion. I do not know how it is portrayed on your screen exactly. Joobo (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On my screen, it is immediately below the racial distribution map and just a bit to the right of the Atheism image. There is no intervening text or free space involved. As a result, it looks entirely a part of the Religion section. I really think it would be better served back on the left and in the position I had moved it to (just a bit higher than previously) just before you relocated it - the point is that it needs to make sense on all screens. Left alignment of images is ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia and perfectly acceptable if otherwise relevant. Also keep in mind that it has been in that left-aligned position for years without objection. Your help recently has really been appreciated, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Joobo, your 4-ethnic image picture looks great. Thank you! Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @Castncoot:. Could you please take out the second image showing the particular LGBT Person? It is again too many images, plus for this City article it also appears to be not relevant enough. Thanks. -----Joobo (talk)

I respectfully decline. The second image and caption deal specifically with the transgender community, and there is a specific and reliably sourced transgender text section that it directly corresponds to. Therefore, it is WP:NOTABLE. Castncoot (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully insist. There is no doubt that there is a relatively big transgender community in NYC (well, its the biggest City of the United States). There is also no Problem with the sources. Nevertheless, there are too many images and with that image one has 3 images regarding lgbt community in this article. Two are perfectly good as well. So as said, its not only an aspect of relevance, but also of the layout regarding the amount of images. Joobo (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is objectively fallacious. The first image, in the history section, deals specifically with a sentinel historical event in the city's chronological diary and flows chronologically in that section. It has nothing to do with the other two. Regarding the other two, the top portrays a gay pride march celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York in 2011, while the second portrays a transgender theme - two totally different issues, and both correspond with the appropriate text. Any kind of potential association between the historical image and the other two never even occurred to me (and probably to most others) before you mentioned this, evidenced by the fact that this status quo has been there for years before you brought it up. Why is that? Castncoot (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)