Talk:New York–New Jersey Harbor Estuary

Untitled
I added a section on tides to the intro. I'm not really sure it belongs in this particular article, but it didn't seem to fit anywhere else. Putting it in Upper New York Bay, for example, wouldn't be right since the tidal system is much larger than just the bay. I'd be happy to consider a better place for it if anybody has a better idea. If I get really adventerous, maybe I'll do a "Tides of New York" article. RoySmith 06:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd heard something to the effect that New York Harbor is a very ideally set-up harbor, I think particularly for schooners. I don't know much about that sort of thing, but if anyone has any information about that it would be great to include it (and the effect that had in making New York the premier port for most of American history.)Doregasm 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * —The natural harbor had several good anchorages. I think the New York Harbor article discusses this some, as the deepening of the Harbor to accommodate ever bigger vessels and wharf locations. Unless somebody puts in a historical depth map (as in The Works: Anatomy of a City by Kate Ascher, p. 74-5). and...
 * —As to the tide, my feeling is that the Marine life of NY Harbor should be renamed Environment and Ecology of NY Harbor. This would then be an ideal place for tides, since that is a big part of estuaries. Although geography is important to the environment, for marine life is more closely tied to general environmnent (than is humen life). (If this is done parallel to the "Geography and environment of NYC" then this article should be retitled.) finally ...

Map
The map at the top is incomplete since it misses Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook is important in that Sandy Hook Pilots have the pilotage for the Harbor. rmo13 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the rename?
I don't think this rename was a good idea. While the new title may be technically more accurate, it is also overly verbose and technical. Are there any objections if I move it back to the original name? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why the older name doesn't work is because it's too inaccurate and too misleading. In local nomenclature (and beyond) New York Harbor is understood to be the Upper Bay, or the original "inner harbor", and is sometimes promoted as such. This article deals with a much wider region and ecosystem, and is used by the the Department of Environmental Protection and other organizations concerned with geographical, maritime, and environmental aspects of the port, as does the article. The category and redirects remain the original name, while readers will be given correct, better, and (sorry), technical information here, which seems to be the objective in writing an encyclopedia. Djflem (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That said, any suggestions with what to do with the New York Harbor article, which has always been a big mess? My inclination would be to do a better history of harbor and the activities around it including the North (to Midtown) and lower East River (to the Manhattand and Brooklyn Bridges)Djflem (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The rename is stupid. (Anonymous Everyday User) 3:42, 25 Nov 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.91.188 (talk)

Size
How big is it, by water surface area and volume? -- Beland (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)