Talk:New York City/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi Protect

Since the article is featured and of good quality; can we possibly semi-protect the article to registered users? While New York is a famous city, it is also one of the most hated! I see that the article on the greater New York State has already been protected.

I concurr, and have made a request to do so. Mr. Carbunkle 07:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing and other issues

  • "New York City has the highest population density of any major North American city." Neither source says anything about density, let alone "highest". Union City, New Jersey across the Hudson is denser, but I agree it's not a "major" city. A source needs to be identified to support this fact, even if it is almost certainly true.
  • "He [Hudson] discovered Manhattan Island on September 11, 1609, and continued up the river that bears his name, the Hudson River, until he arrived at the site where New York State's capital city, Albany, now stands. His aim to find a route to China had failed but what he had discovered was something even better, the largest natural harbor in the New World on the island of Manhattan and the third largest in the entire world." - sources are available in Manhattan article.
  • "In 1664, the British conquered the city, and there by uniting their colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia and renamed the city, "New York" after the English Duke of York, the heir to the throne." I assume "thereby" is intended, but the sentence needs to be restructured to make grammatical sense.
  • The 1754-1790 paragraph is unsourced, with the exception of a reference for Washington's first inaugural speech.
  • "The Commissioners' Plan of 1811, which created a rational street grid to encompass most of Manhattan, helped guide expansion of the city." By what sense is "rational" meant?
  • Sources needed for Central Park and Tammany Hall.
  • That "Eleven black men were lynched over a five day period" in the draft riots is indeed noteworthy, but reliable sources claim over 100 more deaths. (see Ward, Geoffrey C. "Gangs of New York", a review of Paradise Alley by Kevin Baker, The New York Times, October 6, 2002.)
  • Sources should be provided re 1898 consolidation and the event probably deserves a bit more detail.
  • "most populous city in the world in 1925, overtaking London" needs a source. I have been unable to find one that matches the date and description in the article.
  • The period from 1960-2000 is unsourced.
  • The second paragraph cites "an area of 322 square miles (830 km²)" while geography says "The city's land area is 321 mi² (831.4 km²)."
  • The lead sentence in the Environment section, "Environmental concerns in the city involve managing its extraordinary population density." requires elaboration.
  • "Surrounded mostly by water, New York's residential density and high real estate values in commercial districts saw the city amass the largest collection of individual, free-standing office and residential towers in the world." is not supported by the Emporis source provided.
  • "Wealthy industrialists in the 19th century built a network of major cultural institutions, such as the famed Carnegie Hall and Metropolitan Museum of Art, that would become internationally established." What does "internationally established" mean?
  • Detail re history of Broadway and the Broadway musical needs to be sourced.
  • "The city is also home to many of the finest haute cuisine restaurants in the United States." is not supported by the source provided.
  • All four major sports headquarters are in NYC, but only two are mentioned.
  • Jets and Giants are in New Jersey now, but fact that they previously played in New York City should be mentioned.
  • Islanders would seem to have no connection to New York City.
  • Stickball article cites "Italian, Jewish and Irish youths" as source, this article says "youths in working class Puerto Rican, Italian, and Irish neighborhoods". Neither has any source.
  • "Three of the "Big Four" record labels are also based in the city." is unsourced. The World music market article linked from "Big Four"cites Universal Music Group (France based), Sony BMG Music Entertainment, inc. (Japan/Germany based), Warner Music Group (USA based) and EMI Group (UK based), which would seem 1 of 4.
  • No source provided for "Public access television originated in the city in 1968." See comparable statement in Manhattan article for a source.
  • "High-tech industries like bioscience, software development, game design, and Internet services are also growing due to its position at the terminus of the transatlantic fiber optic trunk line in New York City." has a dead link. It's not clear why the growth of all of these industries would be caused by the presence of this terminus".
  • "The city has an extremely high population density of 26,403 people per square mile (10,194/km²), about 10,000 more people per square mile than the next densest American city, San Francisco." The source provided shows SF as fifth densest. And a definition needs to be selected that excludes Union City, New Jersey, which is a more densely-populated city.
  • Members of the are New York City Council are described as both "councillors" and "councilors", neither of which seems to be in use here.
  • "The city's public school system, managed by the New York City Department of Education, is the largest in the United States." requires a source, as does "Public postsecondary education is provided by the City University of New York, the nation's third-largest public university system"

I will do my best to address as many of these issues as I can. Alansohn 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting through all these yet. Can you please point out which still need to be addressed? --Aude (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Population Density Comparison in Intro

The statement saying New York City has the highest population density outside California is misleading. The sentence starts out by stating the population and area of New York City proper then cites a source that compares population density rankings of urban areas. We shuld decide which statistical unit to use for population density comparisons and clarify that. For city proper, it is true that New York City has the highest population density for "major" cities. (There are many smaller places that have a higher density). --Polaron | Talk 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source that ranks cities by population density. Or we can omit it entirely from the intro, which is plenty long enough. --Aude (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The raw census numbers for incorporated places are insufficient? All I'm saying is that if you want to use urban area rankings, make it clear that you are talking about urban areas and not the city proper by using the urban area population and surface area instead of the city proper data. If you want to use city proper rankings, this is a possible source. --Polaron | Talk 14:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I found from the Census Bureau... The comparison table United States -- Places and (in selected states) County Subdivisions with 50,000 or More Population; and for Puerto Rico lists all places with more than 50,000 people, in descending order by population (not density). This includes cities, but also many other places (including Townships and CDPs), as well as all five boroughs of New York City. Ignoring the boroughs, New York City's denisty of 26,402.9 per square mile ranks second on this list to Union City, New Jersey's density of 52,977.8 for its 67,088 residents. As long as we use this source, we can reliably and verifiably say "New York City has the highest population density of all municipalities in the United States with more than 100,000 people." To find this data set, go to American Fact Finder at the Census Bureau web site and:
  • Select Data Sets from the left navigation menu on the AFF main page.
  • Select Decennial Census.
  • Choose a Census 2000 Summary File.
  • Choose the table format--Geographic Comparison Tables
  • Select United States--Places and (in selected states) County Subdivisions with 50,000 or more population and Puerto Rico.
  • Select a GCT table from the list.
  • Click Show Result.
This bypasses the whole issue of city vs. metro area, and creates a category where New York City does rank higher than Union City. For that matter, any cutoff above 100,000 would accomplish the same goal. Alansohn 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The American Fact Finder link works. It would be a more reliable source than Demographia. --Aude (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead text

Hi guys - I've been a long time editor of this article and after having taken a break for a bit I'm thrilled to come back and see that it's received FA status.

However, I have three complaints about the bloated intro: first, it repeats many details that are found elsewhere in the article and are not vital in providing a "concise overview" that "summarizes the most important points" as the WP manual of style calls for; second, it is too long (taking away valuable space for the article's other major sections); third, it contains vague assertions that aren't sourced and aren't particularly revealing.

Other FA city articles, such as San Francisco, have intros consisting of three concise paragraphs. There is no listing of who's mayor, what bridges are in the city, or vague assertions that the city has experienced "celebrations" and "tragic times" (what city hasn't?).

My proposal for the intro reads like this:

New York City (officially The City of New York) is the largest city in the United States, and one of the world’s leading business, financial and cultural centers. Located in southern New York State, the city is a major venue for international diplomacy and the home of the United Nations.

Five boroughs comprise the city: The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. About 8.2 million people live within the city’s 322 square miles (830 km²), making New York City the most densely populated major city in North America. The New York metropolitan area, with a population of 18.8 million, is the third most populated urban region in the world.

New York City has been the birthplace of many American cultural movements, including the Harlem Renaissance in literature and visual art, abstract expressionism in painting, and hip hop in music. Since its founding by Dutch colonists in 1625 the city has been a major immigration gateway to North America. In 2005, nearly 170 languages were spoken in the city and 36 percent of its population was foreign born.

Momos 01:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a more concise intro is needed; however, this needs to be balanced with the fact that several FA votes switched to support because of my longer (and admittedly a bit cumbersome) intro, and to switch it back to the short one now after receiving FA status is a bit off. --Golbez 11:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unorthodox?

It seems that every article on every American city I come across is followed by the name of the state including the cities that have the name of the state in them already (e.g. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Florida City, Florida, etc.). For some reason, there is an exception here. Any reason for this? Reginmund 01:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion in Archive 2 and Archive 5. --Aude (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, insert a new external link

Will you please insert the following external link. Is the New York Business Directory http://www.directoriodeempresas.net/nydirectory.html VictorFRodriguez 11:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Boroughs and Counties are coterminous

A recent edit claimed that Manhattan and New York County are not coterminous ("having matching boundaries"), as a portion of Manhattan is really part of the Bronx. Marble Hill, Manhattan, while now physically connected to the Bronx and seemingly disconnected from Manhattan, is indeed part of the Borough of Manhattan / New York County. All five borough/county pairs are fully coterminous. The status of Marble Hill as an integral part of Manhattan / New York County is covered in the neighborhood article, which includes a reliable source from The New York Times to document this. Alansohn 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Crime

By including this, "Among the 182 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000, New York City ranked 136th in overall crime (with about the same crime rate as Boise, Idaho)." along with reordering the crime section, I think NPOV is lost. The section now over emphasizes the low crime rate, saying it numerous times (lowest crime rate of the ten largest cities, same crime rates as Boise, crime has dropped over the past 12 years, crime is at the lowest level since 1963. I think readers get it without saying the same thing over and over again. This section needs to be a WP:SUMMARY, with details in the subarticle. I'm also not sure about the reorder of the section, but might accept it if we can tone down the section with fewer statistics. --Aude (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

-- I don't see how statistics can erode NPOV, since they are actually far more objective than the statements on the city's relation to organized crime and gangs which is mostly the product of the media. Comparative statistics should definitely be at the beginning of the section, with some historical background behind it. I did delete one sentence that merely repeated another, but otherwise I don't find the section repetitive at all. Relatively speaking, the presence of gangs and the mafia have been a very minor part of crime in the city's history. --Jleon 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Gangs and organized crime, a product of the media? actually it's referenced to a book by a criminologists and a police officer which talks about crime throughout NYC history. Gangs and organized crime during the 1800s and early 1900s were not a "very minor part of crime". It's important to bring a historic perspective and talk about crime through out NYC history. Not just recent years. On the other hand, sources like theinsider.com are not exactly reliable sources. If we are to include statistics, at least the sources could be more reliable. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

--The vast majority of crimes do not have, and never had, anything to do with gangs. Therefore it is true that they are relatively minor. Their importance is mostly in the drama and excitement of the stories. Do you really think the book you mention would have sold as many copies if it was about mundane pick-pocketing or domestic violence? Also, a subsection titled "Crime" within the "Government" section should really focus on the modern day situtation, and leave the crime history to the appropriate "History" section. --Jleon 12:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If gangs were "very minor", why does the NYPD currently devote 300 officers to its Gang Division. [1] And, that's with gang violence at lower levels today. And, the NYPD worked with the FBI in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the FBI-NYPD Joint Organized Crime Task. Why bother if organized crime was "very minor". These were important priorities of the NYPD because they were significant problems. They need mention and help give the crime section a broader picture of crime in New York City, which is discussed in more detail in the subarticle. (which will be expanded) Per WP:SUMMARY, we need to summarize the topic in the main article and not just talk about one aspect (current crime statistics). --Aude (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

--You just proved my point: 300 officers out of 37,000 is extremely minor indeed. I would appreciate some other viewpoints on this before you start cutting the material in question. It's really a mystery to me as to why you choose to make such a big deal over someone adding a few important statistics to the article. --Jleon 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it not true that "Organized crime has long been associated with New York City"? I'm simply looking for balance between current crime statistics and providing historical context and summary. And whatever crime statistics we do include must be cited to reliable sources. --Aude (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
My main objection during the FAC was "Yes, we know NYC is important, but think the lead section goes overboard on telling readers how important and great NYC is. I see this in other places in the article. The article needs to be neutral and be more modest in this respect, so that it reads less like something written by the NYC Visitors & Convention Bureau." I think the article has improved drastically in that regard. And, yes the low crime rate is true. But don't need to repeatedly say that with various statistics. The source you just provided is a good one, and maybe a better statistic than the first one "lowest crime rate of the ten largest cities" to make the point. --Aude (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

--I cut the "safest of the 10 largest" statement, I hope the issue can be put to rest now. --Jleon 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. Details can certainly go in the sub-article. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I'm all for improving the intro, but per WP:LEAD, it needs to be a summary of what's in the article. History is part of the article and needs to be mentioned in the intro. It can be mentioned more concisely, but should go somewhere in the intro. --Aude (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

-As it is right now, history is still mentioned in the intro. I merely trimmed it down since it is explored in depth in the very first section of the article. --Jleon 03:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the oppose by User:Jayron32 in the FAC, who had issue with the lead. A shorter lead is fine, but in chopping out two paragraphs, I'm not sure it summarizes the article as well, such as transportation not mentioned. --Aude (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Named after the Duke of York

Surely New York is named after the English city of York which the Duke of York was Duke of and not the Duke himself.

James, the Duke of York and Albany was the brother of King Charles II. The King granted the his brother the colony, which was named for the Duke. Here are some sources I found:
  • New York, named for the Duke of York, the original grantee. - The Origin of Certain Place Names in the United States by Henry Gannett [2]
  • It was named in 1664 in honor of the Duke of York and Albany - [3] --Aude (talk)


9/11 Picture Captions

9/11 is very important to NYC, and it absolutely deserves a place in the article. But as momentous as 9/11 was, it's still just a part of the city's history -- an important and recent part, but I felt that the number of mentions in picture captions was awkward and disproportionate. I'll sum up my changes:

  • I deleted the big picture of the Twin Towers. There was no clear reference to 9/11, but a large picture of the Twin Towers clearly evokes memory of it. This was in the Geography section.
  • Moved the Manhattan view with the Twin Towers and Statute of Liberty. A better "geography" photo as it has two NYC landmarks, and also a better "history" picture as the caption explicitly mentions 9/11. As such, I placed it beside those two sections.
  • Deleted the 9/11 reference from the photo of the Village Halloween Parade. I wouldn't be opposed to reverting this one, but it seemed out of place and awkward in the "culture" section. Other opinions welcome. SpiderMMB 08:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

--I'm OK with it, but I was wondering why you made the history and geography pics so much bigger than the rest of the article? --Jleon 12:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding pictures

Is it reasonable to just add a picture to this article? Here's one I made.

NYCSkyline.jpg

What do you think?Slofstra 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Its a great image, I've been trying to add it to the article but someone keeps removing it for some reason. Pag293 (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

see bottom of this page. this image is outrageously high res at 4 and a half megs! a nice shot but not appropriate for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 (talkcontribs) 03:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotham

Anyone know where the name "Gotham City" came from?

Read Gotham City; the name 'Gotham' has been associated with New York since the 19th century. --Golbez 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Read Gotham: A History of New York City until 1898. According to that, Washington Irving popularized the term. Gotham comes from a hamlet in England.

Conquered by the English

My understanding was that although the British occupied it illegally starting in 1664, they never actually succeeded in "conquoring" New Amsterdam. To me conquoring implies taking (and holding) by force. Officially, the island of Manhattan was granted to the British as part of the 1667 Treaty of Breda which ended the second Anglo-Dutch War. In return for Manhattan (which was considered to be virtually worthless at the time), the British granted the island of Run (one of the Banda Islands in Indonesia which were at the time the only source of Nutmeg in the world - an EXTREMELY valuable commodity in the mid-17th century - and solidified the Dutch monopoly on the spice). This is briefly outlined in the Nutmeg article. Other sources could probably be found (although I don't have them in front of me). Any objections to adding/modifying this info? Especially looking for feedback regarding the removal of the "conquored" label.--ZoQuo 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The English (they werent British at the time, that occured more than 50 years later, and if its British in the article that needs to change) sent warships to occupy the city and a fight would have occured if Stuyvesant had his way, but the local businessmen threatened him and forced a surrender. It was a war, warships involved, official surrender, peace treaty. Sounds like a conquering to me.Camelbinky 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed "alpha world cities" phrase

I just removed a phrase in the intro paragraph saying New York was at the top tier of "Alpha World cities". This odd phrase yields only 1,030 non-WP Google hits, presumably because it is a term that a university in the UK is trying to popularize, but hasn't yet. Since the phrase will yield only "What's that?" comments, because it had no utility, since its insertion was just an attempt to promote the phrase, and because New York needs no further superlatives, I removed the phrase, along with a citation to a PDF file that did not actually contain the phrase. Tempshill 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "alpha world cities" only returns 2600 hits on google, but the phrase "world cities" gives over a million. The Alpha part is merely to distinguish it as the highest tier of world cities -- no offense, you can't put most of the other world cities (such as Beta cities Moscow and San Francisco and Gamma cities Jakarta and Minneapolis) on the same tier as NYC. There's a reason why a whopping 47% of americans think of NYC as "The City"! FYI, Chicago is second with a measly 4.5%. -- DragonAtma

I think the article can express this just find without using the term 'alpha world city'. --Golbez 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

cityscapes section

I think the 'cityscapes' section should be at the end of the article, thats where most galleries are located...for instance Tokyo.

Bug in the coordinates

On the very top of the page, I can read "Coordinates: York City ...".

The "New" is lost in the linked URL (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?params=40.71_N_-74.00_E_New)

Too Many Pictures

Does anyone else feel that this article suffers from an overabundance of pictures? The entire article is unusually crowded with them, and it also seems to me that the pictures on the page seem to change every time I come back.

A consensus should be reached as to which pictures should be used. I think the biggest problem in the "revolving pictures" is that people are worried about underrepresented boroughs. That's totally understandable -- but let's get rid of the pictures that are unnecssary. We don't need two pictures of midtown Manhattan right next to each other, or three panaromics of the NYC citiscape. SpiderMMB 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

--I agree, the quality of the pictures is also a major issue. It seems some people are insisting on their own photos regardless of them being grainy, poorly lighted, and poorly framed. I think there should be at least 1 picture of each boro, and an honest attempt to represent the major landmarks (Times Square, Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, etc) while not repeating similar images. --Jleon 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The majority of images is oversized and needs cut down. Lear 21 10:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Rome is listed as a sister city to New York, but on the Rome article and the Paris article it says:

Paris, France is Rome's only sister city (Seule Paris est digne de Rome; seule Rome est digne de Paris / Solo Parigi è degna di Roma; solo Roma è degna di Parigi / Only Paris is worthy of Rome; only Rome is worthy of Paris).

New York City clearly thinks it is a sister city of Rome. See the following from the official NYC web site:
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/unccp/scp/html/sc/main.shtml
The Rome article seems to make a distinction between "twin" or "sister" cities and "partner" cities. Perhaps NYC does not make such a distinction but Rome does? --Nomenclaturist 18:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I use Wikipedia, I don't know how to edit articles and such stuff. Therefore, I ask anyone more experienced for the following: In the city sister section is a mix up with the flags. Please exchange the flags of the two cities from Turkey and Israel. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.225.150.70 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Sister Cities section -- lockable?

Can the "sister cities" section of this article be locked, or at least restricted to allow edits only by registered users? Every few days, I find that a different (usually anonymous) user has changed the "sister cities" list. Generally speaking, it seems that people are adding cities to this list not out of any confusion as to what cities belong there -- it's accurately sourced and laid out in the header of the section -- but because they want to promote their favorite city. Considering that the information is basically static, and that changes to this section are overwhelmingly composed of these kinds of bad edits, locking or restricting this section would cut down on the constant reverting necessary to keep this section accurate. Best, -- Docether 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is technically possible. I took down the flag icons from the section as they added nothing. If anyone wants to restore them, please cite an encyclopedic reason. Best wishes, --John 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Englisch conquest

New York was not conquered by the Englisch. It was traded with the Dutch for Suriname a.o.

Only FIT?

FIT isn't the only SUNY in NYC In addition to FIT, Downstate Medical, Optometry and Maritime are all within the 5 boroughs. dsemaya 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Boroughs map

An editor replaced the boroughs map with a new one. Unfortunately, while the old map was legible at a small size (since its labels were in a separate legend box), the new map (with floating in-graphic labels) was not. This meant that the new map had to be quite large to be correctly laid out, which tended to overpower the page. In any case, the new map was virtually identical to the previous one and offered no real new content, so I've reverted to the old map. Best, -- Docether 13:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

National Hockey Leauge

Article only mentions New York Rangers, but aren't New York Islanders also in the NHL? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.127.28.26 (talk) 22:41, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

The Islanders play on Long Island, outside of New York City.

Rock2003Rock2003 30 August 2007 23:35 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2003 (talkcontribs) 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable universities

The "Education" section has Berkeley College listed as a notable institution between Barnard and Columbia. This seems a bit out of place to me. JRWalko 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Population stats

The population stats in the infobox at the top of the page are wrong. The population is certainly not 18 million... and more importantly, this number is ten million more than the us census bureau source it cites. someone pls correct this.--Agnaramasi 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

There is some vandalism in the upper right box describing the city... and I don't know enough about WikiPedia to remove it! ;) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.225.28 (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Environment section? Why?

This needs to be folded into other sections or removed to secondary pages, as appropriate. Certain cities may have environmental concerns which are front-page material, but NYC is not in that number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.9.18 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC) nobody ssaays nothin bad bout my newyork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.53.101 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Let's at least fold this section into its secondary page. --In Defense of the Artist 16:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting sections into daughter articles?

If sections are moved to daughter articles, than more information can be added about New York City without this article getting unwieldy. It's time consuming but worth it. If there's a consensus, I'd like to finish it. --In Defense of the Artist 16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's great to add more information to the daughter articles, but please do not cut large amounts of content from the article. This is a featured article, which means a lot of discussion and work went into getting the article to where it is now. Large scale changes should not happen without discussion here first. What "more information" do you think needs to be added? Per summary style guidelines, each of the sections in this article needs to summarize the topic, and then add more information and details to the sub-article. It's possible that some details could be removed from the main article, so long as they are covered in the subarticle. But a summary section (as we currently have) needs to remain in the main article for each subtopic. --Aude (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong FAC dates for {{ArticleHistory}} banner on this page

Something's amiss with the dates of prior FACs in the {{ArticleHistory}} banner of this page. It says FACs were on:

April 4, 2006
July 17, 2007
September 18, 2007
November 28, 2007
January 31, 2007
June 10, 2007

The dates in italics are probably wrong. I've looked through the Wikicode but can't find anything amiss in the dates typed in. Neither did purging the cache help. :( Just leaving this note here for someone with the technical prowess to fix. Resurgent insurgent 01:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, it's fixed now and the dates are all in order. :) Resurgent insurgent 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening words

With due respect, I think it is slightly ridiculous for the main page passage to open with "New York City is a city in..." Well, duh! I didn't know where to post this, but I hope this can be corrected, with just "New York" (which is the official name anyway) being used. K a r n a 00:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone lives in the United States and not everyone knows that New York is also a state. This Wikipedia is for readers who know English no matter where they are from and I'm sure most of the world does not know or give a damn about New York state. 128.227.57.137 04:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:OBVIOUS. GeeJo (t)(c) • 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
On a personal level as an editor who lives in New York State outside of New York City, I take offense to that, but as a practical matter you're right. I have had to explain to people in foreign countries that I am from New York but not the city, and that city and state are not identical entities (as analogous large cities in European countries, at least, often are). Daniel Case 14:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
For goodness' sake, I wasn't raking up the issue between the City and State - there is no need to feel offense. I was simply saying that the opening words were poorly chosen - if the opened word says "New York City," it is ridiculous to say "New York City is a city." So the alternative was "New York," or simply rewording like "New York City is the largest and most populous urban agglomeration..." K a r n a 13:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Accent

The section on the New York accent uses the words "accent" and "dialect" as though they are synonyms, which they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.82.106 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"The New York City area has a distinctive regional speech pattern called the New York dialect, alternatively known as Brooklynese or New Yorkese." "New Yorkese" is a term this fourth generation native NY'er has never heard. Also, "Brooklynese" is just one of a few distinct NY accents. To a degree, these distinctions have died out, but among older generations, people from different part of the city sound different from each other.

Psychlist 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Psychlist

Picture licenses

User:Jbloun1 has uploaded and inserted several pictures that display prominently in this article. He claims to own the copyright to those pictures, which I doubt is the case. IMHO this needs to be verified quickly. --Sir48 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you "doubt" that it's the case? They're pictures of buildings taken with a good digital camera. I've taken tons of those myself, and have some that are almost a match. Carlo 13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I also doubt any of them, or all of them, to be his own work. He already uploaded some verified copyrighted images as public domain and his own work. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


==

9 thumbs up for whoever revamped all of the images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.126.165 (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

The Brooklyn Bridge New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area
Last: 8/12/2007
This box: view  talk  edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Images need attention

The panorama images on the page are beautiful. But I'm concerned we may be overdoing it. Having so many images of such a large size makes the page exceedingly difficult for people on non-broadband connections (the page always takes a long time to load for me on a standard home DSL). I was considering removing a few of the images so we only have one panorama and reducing the sizing on all of the panoramas to be no wider than the end of the disambiguation line (unwrapped) at the top of the page. Any specific thoughts on which image to keep or ideas about alternative solutions to the size issue? -- SiobhanHansa 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all but one. The page is still very large. there seems to have been a lot of change to the photos over the last week or so and I don't think it's all for the better - there seem to be several more, and I think we're already overloaded! But also there have been a lot of replacements, and while the newer images are quite stunning photos they don't all seem to be as illustrative as the previous ones, with far too much concentration on dramatic lighting, famous views and artistic angles. I've already converted one back (restoring Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg which had been replaced by Image:Mass_Transit_Reader.jpg). I think several of the more artistic and overdone ones could do with being converted back too the previous illustrations or removed, for instance:
These are all just changes since October 29th. Since the beginning of October we've nearly doubled the number of images from approx 26 to 50 (until I removed the 3 panoramas this morning). The page looks crowded, it's harder to read and load time is obnoxiously long. We really need to make some better decisions about which images are necessary. -- SiobhanHansa 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed a number of images. Most were excellent, however, created unnecessary clutter and long load times. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired of helping maintain this article (given the volume of edits), and really haven't done anything here in months. But this version is essentially what passed the featured article candidate process. I don't like the City Hall picture, but the other pictures were good. And the number of pictures was good, so as not to overwhelm the text. I think we should go back to these pictures, and then discuss what changes to make here on the talk page. I don't mind switching pictures, but don't like undiscussed changes. --Aude (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The best that I could, I have gone back and restored pictures that were here previously when the article passed FAC or pictures that seemed to have consensus. I am entirely open to changes, but just request they be discussed on the talk page first. I know that one of the key considerations is that all the boroughs are represented with pictures, and not just show Manhattan. --Aude (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the last version of the article by User:Jbloun1, and found there were way too many pictures. Some of them were overlapping with one another, making the page look very ugly. Also, simply the number of pictures was overwhelming. As such, I have reverted again and ask for discussion here on the talk page.
The text is the important part of the article, with the pictures augmenting them. But, pictures should not dominate. Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images give more guidance on use of images. I don't have a huge preference as to which images to include, but would like to keep ones that have consensus. Also, the lead image in the infobox, Image:Top_of_Rock_Cropped.jpg is part of a featured picture, which means it has been evaluated by the larger Wikipedia community and judged for quality. I have a preference for featured pictures (such as this one), especially in the infobox. --Aude (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the idea of starting with the featured article set of photos and discussing changes from there is a good one. -- SiobhanHansa 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
With more than 25 images, it takes far too long to load the page; this may deter the casual reader. More than one image per section tends to break up the flow of text, which detracts from the article's usefulness. I agree with Aude re. preferential inclusion of featured images, and suggest that we limit the article to one image per section, at most (not including maps and diagrams). Best, -- Docether 15:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why were all the beautiful images on here removed????! The night panorama shot of midtown from NJ was fantastic, and there was also an excellent central park shot as well as a future shot of downtown manhattan and the freedom tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.7.94 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. Perhaps you could suggest some specific changes that would improve the article while taking the concerns above into account. the images are still available if you want to look at them - they don't get deleted hust because they are removed from an article. -- SiobhanHansa 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree there were too many pictures, but that doesn't mean they all should have been deleted. It was almost like everyone was hopping on the bandwagon of adding random pictures into the article. However, there were definitely some gorgeous shots that just should NOT have been removed though.. The page in its current state looks very, very underwhelming for our nations greatest city, especially compared to just about every other major cities article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.126.165 (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The reversion is to give us a place to start from. It's not a decision to never have any of the other images. Perhaps you could mention which particular images you think should be included (I think this version contained most of the newer images) and which of the current they should replace or, at least, we don't need as much. (I'm proceeding on an assumption we shouldn't increase the overall number of images) -- SiobhanHansa 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We went back to a point when the article was stable and not changing dramatically. That seemed to represent consensus. However, I don't mind switching some pictures. It just needs to be discussed. One more issue with some of the new pictures recently added is their resolution. The current pictures generally are very high resolution, if you look at the Image pages. That is something we look for. As an example, the Central Park picture there now is 4648 × 3248 pixels. (It is also happens to be a featured picture on Wikimedia:Commons) Which specific pictures do you think should be added to the article, in addition to the current pictures or instead of some? --Aude (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it will be difficult for everyone to agree with what pictures deserve to make it to the article, but I love these two images. One a very nice nightshot of midtown, and the other a rendition of future downtown manhattan with midtown in the backround. I like this picture a lot since it gives a better depiction of the layout of manhattan, while some other pictures distort it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_skyline_from_New_Jersey.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Future_2011_skyline_panorama.jpeg

I understand you were having difficulties loading the page with the amount of pictures, but why limit the entire article to one panorama? Im no expert, but dont they truly only take up that much bandwidth once you maximize them, which is a separate link?.. but even I, on a shared wireless connection with a consistent signal strength of "low" can still access even the most heavily pictured of any of the nyc articles, just fine. How many other people are actually experiencing significant slowdowns because of the bandwith of this page?? I imagine you are having nightmares when it comes to other websites! (good example, just about any major league sports site has ridiculous times the content) but I guess I am under the impression that most of us have broadband these days.. really —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.126.165 (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to using an image purporting to be the future skyline of NY.Image:NYC_Future_2011_skyline_panorama.jpeg Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We have no way of knowing what the skyline will look like in four years. Further, it's not clear how this was created and I suspect that it invovles pasting a copyrighted image into another image. Lastly, if used it would have to be proiminently labelled as an artist's guess. All in all, I think we should stick with images of NY's present or past, not its (imagined) future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The limit on panoramas was my initial and crude attempt to shorten the load time, but it wasn't particularly successful. If we decide more panoramas can make the article better overall then that's fine with me, when I deleted though we did seem to have several stacked up one on top of the other that weren't really adding additional information - I think we should avoid that kind of duplication. Minimizing is a good idea - thatcould be a very effective technique to help us incorporate them without overburdening users' connections (I have a fairly normally domestic cable connection and I found the article was very slow to load, it was taking more than twice as long as this current version).
On the images you link to, I tend to agree with Will Bebeck about the inappropriateness of the future skyline image, but I like the other. Where do you think the Image:NYC skyline from New Jersey.jpg would best go? -- SiobhanHansa 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be included under Cityscape. I think its important for a good shot of midtown Manhattan to be included. I understand there is some question when it comes to the other picture though, but I thought it would represent the 9/11 rebuilding, and also make for a great picture depicting downtown. But what I like more about the picture is its angle, as it shows the cities layout with downtown in relation to midtown in a birds eye view. I have not had time to register on wikipedia yet, but i plan to do so and make edits in the future. but in the meantime if panoramas are going to be added back in, the Central Park one is fabulous. This shot just shows the enormity of the city, as this is north of anything even visible from many other shots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.126.165 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the images that were recently added did look much better, but are unencyclopedic, but rather artistic. Since this is a encyclopedia, they are not appropriate. Perhaps we should all the images that true help illustrate important sections? Also, I feel that Image:NYC_NYPD_Times_Square.jpg should be replaced. I do feel an image of Times Square is important, however, this doesn't not portray Times Square as a whole. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 02:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Has it ever occured to anyone to work backwards, and remove some images from the latest page instead of reverting back to very old images? It seems no progress is taking place here, so maybe this would work better. The images currently in this article are worse than any other major cities article. Our picture representation of times square is a narrow limited view focusing on.. an nypd vehicle? Images are very important for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.7.94 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU....................There is an indian chick that we keep allowing to mess up the entire page, most likely because they hate/envy NYC because it's the greatest city on earth.klepto 04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the current images doesn't mean you can replace them with any images. Wikipedia has guideline o n images. Take a look at the Commons featured pictures to see what are considered good images. Since you seem to be such a good photographer, maybe you could take some new images that fit these guidelines, instead of insulting others. And please sign your comments/messages.—Mr. Grim Reaper at 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as how encyclopedic an images qualifies as, I feel like these photos in the link you provided for good image suggestions, are quite as bright and attractive as the pictures that are being called into question. Some examples: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bangkok_skytrain_sunset.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-roebling-suspension-bridge.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SonyCenterAtNight.jpg

So why are we objecting to detailed and vibrant pictures for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.126.165 (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

because Mr_Grim_Reaper is a high school KID and SiobhanHansa obviously is the only one that hates the photos of making the NYC page great. I hope she can read the dozen or so posts about the people getting pissed off about deleting the entire page over and over again. She already deleted several posts of users swearing and getting mad about her actions. klepto 04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So you shoudl know better if you're not a kid. I don't oppose brilliant tor vibrant photos, but those were too detailed, is all. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And to add, it wasn't the images themselves I had a problem with, but the unnecessary number of them all just thrown in. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Alpha world city

New York; or New York City (officially The City of New York) is an alpha world city in the state of New York.

I ask, how can this be in an encyclopedia, and how old is the kid who actually wrote this?! thx. I would say that NYC is a metropolis. --85.243.27.117 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What city on earth has "theatre" like NYC,... maybe London's West End.

NYC and London= "Alpha World City", that is it. Do you believe a city like Detroit or Rome is on the level of London or NYC... I don't think so and either does the University study group that created the ratings.. klepto 04:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One Sided

This page could not be more one sided, it looks like the official new york tourism web site, all of the photos have been doctored to make the place look more attractive, just another "New york is the greatest city in the world" propaganda example! Broadway represents the hightest level of theatre in the english speaking world??? ONE SIDED???

New York City is an extremely major world city, with few peers, by every standard there is. An article that didn't say so would be inaccurate. Sorry if you don't like the place, but it IS more notable than Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Oh - and the photos aren't doctored. They're good photographs. Sorry if that bothers you. Carlo 14:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What types of photographs should be included that would "balance" the article? Which photos have been "doctored"? Alansohn 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


You misunderstand; I didn't say it is less notable than Sheboygan. What I said was that New York is in the middle of this delusion of grandeur and all of its citizens are convinced they live in the greatest city in the world and this wikipedia page which is supposed to be neutral, isn't neutral and is one sided, making the place look great. Unbalanced. Maybe doctored wasn't the right word, anyway the photograph that I was referring to in particular has been removed (not by me in case you were wondering.) But anyway, you can't say that the photographs weren't purposely taken at the precise right time to catch the sun in the exact right position to create the exact right colour.

As a non-New Yorker, non-American outsider, I would have to say that NYC is without doubt one of the most important cities on Earth, definately the most important in the Western world. Just the fact that it's the centre of the Western economy, somebody from every nation lives there, the business and media centre of the current superpower and home to the United Nations speaks volumes. It sounds like a crazy guy talking, but if aliens wanted to destroy the Earth, which city would they go to first? --Joowwww 17:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

It seems the majority like the new page the way it is, and alot of people including myself are getting upset by the of couple of non-New Yorker amateurs from abroad who keep messing up the NYC website. Leave the new modern looking website the way it is. There is half a dozen posts about leaving the site with the new photos, and half where deleted because people got so upset that SiobhanHansa deleted because he knows hes wrong and people are starting to rant. DON'T EDIT IT AGAIN... edit your own little city. K.. Thanks klepto 04:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a she, not a he, and this is my own city, though that's hardly relevant, people are not restricted to editing the articles of cities they live in. Perhaps you could join the join the discussion that's already underway and try and collaborate. -- SiobhanHansa 02:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The commented-out note "The choice of pictures in this article has been discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. Please discuss changes on the talk page. Undiscussed changes to pictures may be reverted. //" has been deleted by [][User:Andy Marchbanks]]. I have not restored it; perhaps it appeared too colleagial. --Wetman (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New York City subtopics needed!

I believe that new subtopics are needed on the New York City page. -Music and Film or entertainment -Cuisine -Fashion and Shopping most of these would go under Culture of NYC or Media. Thoughts and construction of these subtopics ...klepto 04:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The main concern with adding more sections is that the article is already very long. Other sections would need to be shortened, in order to add more. --Aude (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Common sense.. the NYC page is by far the shortest and most pathetic major city page on the entire site. Go look at Paris or London. I mean do you even help make pages or just delete everything on them. Read the posts above, you will find that people like and want the new page with modern photos, why would anyone not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbloun1 (talkcontribs)
According to Wikipedia's list of longest pages, this one is #524 out of over 2 million articles. See also Wikipedia:Article size for guidance. Also, please tone down the personal attacks. You are free to look at my user page and see the list of featured articles I helped write, and other articles I have worked on. --Aude (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
More subtopics really aren't needed for this article. Because New York City is such an information-rich subject for an encyclopedia article, the main New York City page is structured to be an overview of NYC information, with links to more detailed subject-specific articles. Each "subtopic" within the main article is basically an abstract of information to be found in the associated detail article; for example, the "culture" subtopic is a high-level overview of information found in the Culture of New York City article.
This is a general cycle of development that applies to most large Wikipedia articles, where the subject is detail-rich. Initially, the page is sketched out with a large amount of unorganized detail. Next, successive editors work on consensus to break up the page into subtopics. As more and more detail gets added, the page becomes unwieldy, even with the subtopic divisions, and the information in each subtopic is separated out into a distinct article dealing solely with that subtopic. This is useful for casual readers, who are easily turned off by large masses of detailed information all in one place; however, it is also useful for readers who are interested in the subtopic, since they can navigate to the detail article which specifically addresses their area of interest.
The current state of the New York City article, where the article serves as a high-level overview and portal to detailed information contained in subpages, is not an indication that the article is immature. In fact, it's an indication that the article is mature, well-edited, and information-rich without being cumbersome or unwieldy. Best, -- Docether 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this best describes the situation about the subtopics and visual aspects of the NYC page. (From Pictures need attention above)

Has it ever occured to anyone to work backwards, and remove some images from the latest page instead of reverting back to very old images? It seems no progress is taking place here, so maybe this would work better. The images currently in this article are worse than any other major cities article. Our picture representation of times square is a narrow limited view focusing on.. an nypd vehicle? Images are very important for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.7.94 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

klepto 04:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why change the article?

The old, longer page was much better then it is now. Now the article is way too short. This pages format is changed around way too much and the previous format was great. PLEASE tell me why you think the current format of this article is so great. And don't tell me why the previous was too long. Ric36 20:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have preference either way, but the current article is 107kb. You cannot call that too short when recommended article length is 32kb.--Loodog 21:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the current article looks visually far, far, far better. Without doubt. The other one was a jungle of low-res images. --David Shankbone 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL... so you think the page looks good now with these pathetic pics. The new page that was deleted had much higher resolution photos. Lol, where do you people come from....THIS PAGE IS HORRIFIC! klepto 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

-I usually dont do this, but I have to chime in and say the images are pretty lame here. This image found in Sydney's article is very similar to the recent additions to the NYC article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sydney_Harbour_Bridge_night.jpg . This is also a "FEATURED WIKIPEDIA IMAGE" and that one, along with two other panoramas exist without any objections on that article.. so its almost as if this article has been sabotaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.2.18 (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with staggered images

In my opinion they are pretty ugly & unprofessional looking. But more importantly, they keep moving the left margin for reading - often making the reader's hunt for the next line quite a challenge.

In print encyclopedia I have looked at, when images are in left column, there is no text anywhere in that column (except for captions) - the entire column is images. Thus for each page, the left TEXT margin can always be found the same distance from the left edge of the page.

With a single left image, the start of the next line can change position twice in the same paragraph. With 2 consecutive left images, the next line start can change 3 or even more times for the same long paragraph.

Since we do not have page breaks on-line, we need to address the issue of staggered line starts in some way other than by starting a new page (as print can). Several images can be arranged consecutively in columns - right or left (though I, myself, see really no significant advantage to left side). If images are on left side, <br = clear left> needs to be put in to ensure section headings go fully left.

Right images do not present the same problem, as the reader does not need to make his eyes jump to find the next line on that side of the page. Personally, I think left imaging should be used sparingly or even not at all. I cannot see the point in alternating them - is it for "variety"? Is it to prevent white space? (sometimes they result in MORE white space). One cannot judge that the formatting one gets with one's own browser & screen resolutions & text sizes & thumbnail sizes will work similarly for others.

I have tried below to show what I mean graphically. I should probably ALSO take this up in the style guide discussions --JimWae 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the result is something like this:

PARAGRAPH START text text
IMAGE text text text text
IMAGE text text text text
IMAGE text text text text
IMAGE text text text text
text text text PARAGRAPH END . IMAGE
                                                IMAGE
PARAGRAPH START text text textIMAGE
text text text text text text text tIMAGE
IMAGE text text text text
IMAGE PARAGRAPH END.
IMAGE
IMAGE PARAGRAPH START
IMAGE text text text text
text text text text text text
IMAGE text text text text
IMAGE text text text text
IMAGE text text text text
text text text PARAGRAPH END

The above is even worse when the width of the left images differs

and also

IMAGE
IMAGE SECTION HEADING
IMAGE blank space
IMAGE blank space
PARAGRAPH START text text text text

I staggered the image hoping it might look a little better, but I'm not sure about it. If everyone is in favor of all right-aligned images, then revert (or edit) it back. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Cleanup in the Architecture section

This section opens with this statement: "The building form most closely associated with New York City is the skyscraper that saw New York buildings shift from the low-scale European tradition to the vertical rise of business districts. New York City has about 4493 skyscrapers, making it have the most skyscrapers in the world." That second sentence there really needs to be cleaned up for readability, and maybe have a citation added to it. (my account is only a few days old and this page is semi-protected, so i can't do it myself)

Ouze 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting. I changed it to ..., more than any other city in the world. Further improvement is welcome. -- SiobhanHansa 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

hallo i bin da laufrenz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.65.247 (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

January NYC Meetup

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/3/2007
This box: view  talk  edit

This will be the second of the meetups with a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues. We will also have activities scheduled after the session, with dinner at a local restaurant and (weather permitting) some late-night astronomy thrown in.

We are also in discussion on other possible activities like a special guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History or the Columbia University libraries. --Pharos (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fastest growing city?

New York is, of course, the largest city in the US and its population is increasing moderately but it is not the fastest growing city in the US. Fastest growing rankings are based on percentage growth, not overall numbers. The fastest growing title would belong to Phoenix, Las Vegas or one of their surrounding suburban cities. So the reference that New York is the fastest growing city needs to be removed, its incorrect. Or at the very least it needs to be altered, such as: "Although New York's percentage growth is not the highest in the country, it does have the highest overall number of new citizens". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talkcontribs) 03:59, 31 November 2007

That entire section is unsourced. I've commented it out, so if someone cares to provide references, they may. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this was supposed to refer to the NYC Metropoliatan area,since it is the largest metro area centered around the largest city, and includes a very nice chunk of jersey. so this is definitely possible, but still lets see an official link to something like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.2.18 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On reference #150 (accent-related)

I really don't think an archived New York Times editorial is sufficient for an assertion that the New York accent is "dying". You need to cite a linguistic journal or phonetics related university study for something like this, not an editorial that's thesis is based on ANECDOTAL evidence from randomly interviewed New Yorkers. It's a very strong assertion this article is making on accents -- the "goyle" type pronunciation has historical and literary significance (Iceman Cometh comes to mind), and I really don't think enough thought went into that sub-section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.190 (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Freedom Tower" image

I've boldly removed the "Freedom Tower" image from the "Architecture" section in this article. The image appeared on the page as seen here : [[Image:New wtc.jpg|200px|thumb|The new World Trade Center, the Freedom Tower, as it might look. The Memorial in the front center of the rendering is flanked by (from the left) Freedom Tower, 7 WTC, Tower 2, the PATH station, and Towers 3 and 4.]]

My rationale : This is an architectural rendering, not a photograph of an existing building. The completion of the Freedom Tower is currently not even close to the state depicted in the rendering; as of December 2007, the foundation is apparently still incomplete, and the construction isn't even projected to be visible at street level until mid-2008. Many architectural renderings use a current photograph of the site to lend verisimilitude to the rendering of the proposed building; I assume that this is the case here.

I believe that this image is inappropriate for the page. The rest of the photographs on this page all appear to be depict actual, existing aspects of the article's subject : New York City. Given this context, to present an image which appears to be a photograph of an existing building, but instead is a manipulated image imbedding a yet-unrealized building in an actual New York setting, is unintentionally confusing.

As included in this article, the image does have a caption pointing out its speculative nature. However, while this image would be perfectly fine in the context of the Freedom Tower article, where the entire thrust of the article underlines the building's unfinished state, to have this image (caption or no) presented in the context of a section discussing the -current- architectural aspects of New York City is bound to be misleading.

We should be careful to make sure that even the most casual visitor is not misled into believing that Wikipedia is endorsing a speculative view of future events. I believe that the article would be better-served by the inclusion of an image representing the current state of New York City's distinctive architecture. Best, -- Docether (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The image also fails fair use policy. This is a copyrighted image, which are only permitted on Wikipedia under strict requirements listed on the policy page. They are to be used when there is no free equivalent and where the image is crucial for understanding the topic of the article. In this case, the image is acceptable for the Freedom Tower page, but not New York City. There are scores of free images of NYC. This image is merely a decoration of the page, which is not an acceptable reason. --Aude (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This image has been removed several times already but someone keeps putting it back up..

--Speaking of images, this article suffered at one point from having too many images but that has since been cleared up but unfortunately the article is now severely lacking. We currently have NO pictures of Times Square, Rockefeller Center, Wall Street, Broadway, etc .. and a lousy (imo anyway) pic of Central Park. Absurd!! --Dogma5 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree, for all reasons stated above, that it should not be on the page. Especially as it is not built yet; thus, it is not an example of New York architecture. --David Shankbone 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how could you make such a fuss on the Freedom Tower image. Sure it's still in the early stages of construction, but still. When completed it will mark a new era for the city, the United States, and even the entire world. I believe that you are damaging the article by removing the image. Please think about why you don't want the image in the article. Your explanations seem poor to me. Ric36 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"You" is actually four different people. The reasons found here are many, and are all valid. --David Shankbone 19:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
They're just mad that that the structure is going to be built. They want the site to be left alone. That's why those four people are removing the image. Ric36 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment on the edits, not the editors. You don't know those people nor a thing about why they do what they do, and that includes me, who is one. You certainly aren't being persuasive in arguing for its inclusion by casting aspersions at editors you know nothing about. --David Shankbone 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not being persuasive? I'm actually making sense unlike you and the other editors. Ric36 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm just proving a point. People don't remove the image just because they feel like it. It's painfully obvious that they don't want construction of the tower so they they decide to remove that Freedom Tower image on the NYC page. Ric36 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether or not I like the image, or want it on the page or not... it is a copyrighted image and fails our fair use policy. Wikipedia (article text) is licensed under GFDL, which means anyone can take and reuse content. Most images are also free (either GFDL or Creative Commons), in the sense that you can re-use them elsewhere. In very limited circumstances, we can use copyrighted images on Wikipedia. Those situations are where the image is vital to the article, and there are no other suitable images for the article. This is not one of those situations. However, the image is okay on the Freedom Tower page itself. Please read over the fair use policy to understand why it is so. The policy comes from higher-ups at Wikipedia, and is above and beyond any one of us individually to decide. --Aude (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the image once and trust me i have no intent to do harm to the article. When the WTC is complete it will without a doubt bring some serious image changes to this article. Speaking of the images, I added a new skyline that is more of a full skyline shot. The other photo (from atop the empire state building) is a perfect shot, but it is also conveniently located in both the Manhattan article and the ESB article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 (talkcontribs) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

skyline

we should come up with a consensus for the skyline/panorama shot for this article:

So far here are a few candidates:


Fullnycskyline.jpg
NYCSkyline.jpg
Skyline-New-York-City.jpg
NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg
NYC Central Park pano from Top of the Rock.jpg

I like all of these to be honest, but the one with the 15,000 something resolution and 4.4mb size is far too large, as maximizing this image will be hell for some slower computers.. not to mention the right side of the image is basically not even worth looking at. The other shot (from the top of the ESB) is nice too but it also appears in several other articles (manhattan, nyc architecture, esb..). So if we want to cut it down to one skyline, which pic should it be? My vote would go for the night top of the rock pic but I feel as if the other one compliments it quite nicely, as there are not any other shots that show the cityscape of central park and the upper west and east side areas.

disambig

Gotham needs disambig. Randomblue (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

education

Manhattan College was not mentioned in the education section of this article. Manhattan College is Lasalian institution that provides undergraduate degrees in the fields of education,liberal arts, business, and engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.61.26.208 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) jessie was ya 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.230.181 (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)