Talk:New York City/Archive 18

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2018
Change

subdivision_type	= Country subdivision_name	= 🇺🇸 subdivision_type2	= State subdivision_name2	= undefined subdivision_type3	= Counties / (Boroughs) subdivision_name3	= Bronx (The Bronx)  Kings (Brooklyn)  New York (Manhattan)  Queens (Queens)  Richmond (Staten Island)

subdivision_type4	= Historic colonies subdivision_name4	= New Netherland Province of New York

governing_body		= New York City Council leader_title		= Mayor

to

subdivision_type        = Country subdivision_name        = United States subdivision_type2              = State subdivision_name2              = New York subdivision_type3              = Counties / (Boroughs) subdivision_name3              = Bronx (The Bronx) Kings (Brooklyn) New York (Manhattan) Queens (Queens) Richmond (Staten Island)

subdivision_type4              = Historic colonies subdivision_name4              = New Netherland Province of New York

governing_body                 = New York City Council leader_title                   = Mayor

WP:INFOBOXFLAG MOS:INFOBOXFLAG 82.30.110.20 (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I did not remove the flags from the USA, the state and historic colonies, as MOS:INFOBOXFLAG permits these. Danski454 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually MOS:INFOBOXFLAG starts "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes - Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." The later passage "Human geographic articles – for example, settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags", isn't as emphatic and seems to be a contradiction. A year or so ago, maybe two, I remember reading comments about a discussion there had been between admin, senior editors et al, in which a consensus had been reached that flags should not be used in infoboxes of town and cities, and a random check of such pages tends to bear this out, with the odd exception usually in articles about the United States. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

External links: Free NYC Events Calendar
For External links or Resources section: Free NYC Events Calendar Alex17333 (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Wikipedia is not a tourist site.....external links should be educational not promotional in-nature.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2018
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Šola (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC) wuuuuuuuuuhduhuaigwgfduiagr7f8tuiosagfzuitzgsoipfjuifsgt8rzdfshfefg8sdhdzfqtdsuhfg6zutg9'rhzturtfdzf'
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  18:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Pushpin Map
Why do we need to show New York City...within New York City? It makes zero sense.  IWI  ( chat ) 08:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a map of NYC makes perfect sense in an article about NYC. This has recently been restored by User:Castncoot with the edit summary "Undid ... Actually an excellent edit". Other views are only 1 click away, but removing that option is permanent. I don't understand ImprovedWikiImprovment's (IWI) edit summary "Pointless, it's a map of NYC, so you're only really showing Downtown" because it doesn't – it shows NYC, just as the WikiMiniAtlas does, only better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not for a pushpin map though, that’s what locator maps are for. The pin is implying that NYC is where the pin is and not the entire area.  IWI  ( chat ) 18:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate both viewpoints. I think the final result as of now is a good one. However, what would be more ideal, if this is my correct understanding of what MB is alluding to - would it be possible to have an interactive map of the whole city in that space? Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, for now what I did is fine; a map of NYC is not for the pushpin section.  IWI  ( chat ) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I actually realized only now what you did. Michael Bednarek is correct. Castncoot (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of having a pushpin on a map of NYC? You’re implying that NYC is where the pin is and not the whole map. Either should be a seperate map or not there at all.  IWI  ( chat ) 11:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The location map is of great value to readers. It provides concise information about the shape of the city. I doubt that any reader would be confused the way you describe. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You are not getting the point; I DO NOT object to the map being there, but to the map being shown with a pushpin as it could be misleading to some readers. Not everyone knows what the map is showing at first glance and with a pushpin centered on lower Manhattan reading “New York City”, the map suggests where the pushpin is shown is the city and not the whole area displayed on the map. Please read this carefully as you’re clearly having difficulty understanding this.  IWI  ( chat ) 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I understood very well your objection to the pinpoint on that map, and I responded that no one is likely to be confused the way you describe. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is aware of what a map of the city looks like; to me at first glance, it makes me think of NYC shown within some kind of subdivision like a county. Removing the pin would eliminate the problem. And I am aware of ditto but I was under the impression you didn’t understand.  IWI  ( chat ) 11:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We should have an interactive map there as well as a pushpin map. How do we accomplish this? Castncoot (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The map should be plain and not pushpin; we already have an interactive map of the boroughs on this page.  IWI  ( chat ) 07:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s not acceptable, he agrees with me and you ignored it. I will report you if you attempt to continue this Castncoot.  IWI  ( chat ) 20:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, given the nature of how the boroughs like Brooklyn, etc are often treated separately, a push-pin in the context of the all-NYC map (with a pinpoint in New York County, no less) does not help, and may hinder understanding of the whole. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sorry ImprovedWikiImprovment, but nobody agrees with you here. I am going to revert your non-constructive edits. Castncoot (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What? I'm against the push-pin (little red-dot) in the NYC map. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * at least acknowledge.  IWI  ( chat ) 14:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Acknowledge? Sure. I believe you have been causing confusion and mayhem with your editing. But on the other hand, you did start a discussion! Castncoot (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mayhem? You do realise there are two people for the change and two against therefore we couldn't be any further from consensus? You literally ignored and said "no one agrees with you". Nothing about my edits cause mayhem; I see something evidently wrong and I try to fix it.  IWI   ( chat ) 08:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You’re unwilling to discuss or even consider my viewpoint, which isn’t how we run Wikipedia. The purpose of a pushpin map is to show the reader where the city is, A map of New York City doesn’t show you where New York City is and suggests New York City is only located on Manhattan (where the pushpin is) and would likely confuse anyone not familiar with the map of New York City.  IWI  ( chat ) 19:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore you STILL haven’t acknowledged your mistake earlier with what said; you said that no one agrees with me but as is evident above, he did. I think you cause mayhem by being obsessed with edit warring as opposed to discussion.  IWI   ( chat ) 19:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge my confusion and consequent error. Castncoot (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Epicgenius- I am having difficulty loading the interactive map of the whole city into this article, unlike you were apparently able to do without difficulty for the boroughs, per the discussion and plan in Talk:Manhattan. Did you have difficulty as well and is that why you did not load the interactive map for the whole city into this article? Castncoot (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. This page is very large (340 kB), and everything takes a long time to load. When I tried to load the interactive map in preview mode, I had difficulties as well. epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, Epicgenius- do you think there may be a workaround for this issue? Castncoot (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any workaround. Maybe we should continue using a static image instead in the short run. This article's template limits are already being stretched (according to the HTML source code, post-expand include size is 1480753 out of 2097152 bytes, which is pretty high). epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Successfully loaded. Castncoot (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

City vs. Megacity?
In Template:Infobox settlement, the standard seems to be to specify in settlement_type the type of government. In the State of New York, the options would be City, Town, Village (and Borough in New York City) for incorporated places, with CDP, hamlet, reservation (and perhaps limited others) for unincorporated places. I'm not sure that Megacity is an appropriate option. In my view, this edit by is on the right track. I support the change and I'm not sure that this edit by is the right way to go. Any thoughts here? Is New York City different and (even if it is) should that difference be expressed in the settlement_type parameter? Alansohn (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A la Mumbai or Delhi. In addition, the map in the infobox and adjacent lead section both point out that NYC is within NYS. On the other hand, a megacity is a very specific type of city and therefore adds new and constructive information and dimensionality to the reader right from the inception. Castncoot (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it closely, I do see your point, Alansohn (and ImprovedWikiImprovment, if that was your intention) about including the administrative aspect which would not be included in the megacity descriptor. On the other hand, simply stating "city in New York State" or "city" would not do justice to the particular size and gravitas of New York City. Well, we've included two kinds of maps, there's no reason we can't have two appropriate descriptors of settlement (as other global cities do) to give the reader the full encyclopedic context. Let's try this on for size and go from there. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) The normal list for settlement_type in the template Infobox settlement is not quite sufficient for NYC, which is described in the article as a "megacity" and listed at that article. The template's documentation does not prescribe which values may be used. I think using that term in the infobox is helpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Michael Bednarek. Castncoot (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Megacity should not appear in the infobox. Aside from sounding boosterish and not being any type of officially recognized designation, New York does not automatically qualify as "a very large city, typically one with a population of over ten million people" (Oxford) or "a very large city, especially one with more than 10 million people living in it" (Cambridge). And it is relatively rarely referred to as a megacity as opposed to a city in reliable sources. I think the settlement_type field in the infobox could be left blank, since it's obvious "New York City" is a city, or alternatively change the name field to just "New York" (which is what this article would be titled if the "City" were not used for title disambiguation) with the settlement_type of "City" appearing right beneath it. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not boosterism at all. It's a verifiably factual statement per reliable sourcing, and New York City even without its surrounding metropolitan area reliably qualifies as a megacity. The settlement type field does not in any way dictate that the entry be a geopolitical entity, and Wikipedia encourages a global perspective- somebody reading from Ethiopia is not going to understand the local political or administrative nuances - in their mind, New York is a megacity. If anything, Wikipedia and the settlement field actually encourage the best descriptor of a settlement for the reader's benefit. In this case, that would be a megacity. Castncoot (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But that source does not say NYC qualifies. It mentions "New York" only on the map, which says NY has a population over 10 million, so obviously refers to the New York metropolitan area. I don't doubt there are sources somewhere that say NYC is a megacity. It's just that they are vastly outnumbered by sources that call NYC a city, including the most reliable sources, such as The Encyclopedia of New York City, The Encyclopedia of New York State, Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia of the New American Nation, the NYS Constitution, the NY City Charter, etc., none of which even mention "megacity". So it's fine to keep that one sentence in the body of the article, but putting it in the infobox gives it undue weight. Comparable articles like London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Mexico City, Sao Paulo use more encyclopedic terms in that field. Station1 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that source looks pretty bad for decent Wikipedia article, its school stuff. Surely there must be something better. And its not talking aboout New York City, its talking about the Metropolitan Area. It should be removed from the article too.Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It should just read city as that IS the settlement type; megacity isn't a type but a concept. Also I support an infobox name change to "New York"  IWI  ( chat ) 22:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a whole different matter that would take moving the page and an entirely different, monumental, and likely to fail effort to do so. Castncoot (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Megacity has its own Wikipedia page and is WP:NOTABLE. "Settlement_type" (sic) does not. Castncoot (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most readers read the article page – not the source page. Castncoot (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting changing the article name to "New York" but the infobox name.  IWI  ( chat ) 09:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, if consensus for keeping megacity is made here, it should also be the case for Los Angeles, which is also a megacity but reads "city" at the moment.  IWI  ( chat ) 09:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles proper (the subject of the article) is not a megacity, with only 4 million in the city proper (minimum being 5 million). Castncoot (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Against "megacity" - I can't find anywhere it is used in tertiary sources (except in our Megacity article), so our use, is non-standard, non-npov, pushing of a neologism (and probably makes Wikipedia look silly (eg fan-fiction). If we wanted to use it in a more standard way, it only applies to large urban agglomerations or in the US, Metropolitan Areas (eg New York Metropolitan Area), not to the center city, but even there it just is seemingly less used synonym in specialized context, not encyclopedic presentation.  So, this article is a city, not a megacity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that is not true, Alanscottwalker and Station1. The United Nations itself acknowledges the term megacity, and it's difficult to get more authoritative than that. Delhi and Mumbai also use the term "Megacity" in their inboxes, so there is already precedent on Wikipedia. The UN's definition is actually 8 million, although other sources have allowed 5 million. New York City proper alone has 8.6 million residents (the greater NYC metro area has 23.7 million and is actually a metacity). Castncoot (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides, it's obvious to the reader that "New York City" is a "City". (And we can't make the title of the infobox "New York" when the title of the article is "New York City" - that would be out of the question as entirely non-standard for Wikipedia.) Why would we want to dumb down the infobox anyway? Let's given the reader more credit and give them some actual substantial and meaningful information. "Megacity" sets the correct tone to start off this particular article. Castncoot (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, actually the UN uses 10 million, and specifically ties it to urban agglomerations, not what it calls the "city proper" (or as I said the center city). It also has a slightly smaller urban agglomeration for what it calls, New York-Newark, than Wikipedia does at about 18+ million (2016) because it excludes parts of whole metropolitan areas for all agglomerations, world-wide. So, I stand by my opposition, it makes the infobox, uh, 'dumber', if you will.  And you know, I think that school stuff is poor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. And of course we can title the infobox "New York". It's the city's name. Disambiguators are normally left out and "City" is a natural disambiguator here. See London, Ontario and Boston, Lincolnshire as just 2 examples. Station1 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Megacity is a stupid made-up word with no basis in the law of New York (state), and is not commonly used to describe New York. We shouldn't use it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing to Megacity per power~enwiki -- Jayron 32 13:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per . -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 13:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, it's not changing anything, it already has been and is at Megacity. So then what to change it to? New York is both a state and a city, so it would be confusing to many readers to see "New York" titling the infobox and calling it a city. "New York City" is obviously a "City", and with at least 5 million in the city proper, it qualifies as a megacity, which can't be a "made-up" word because it's got its own Wikipedia article. In my opinion, the most accurate and informative descriptor would be "Megacity and City in New York State", capturing both the city's demographic and geopolitical elements. Castncoot (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "...which can't be a "made-up" word because it's got its own Wikipedia article"...brilliant :)  we also have articles on Daleks and Cybermen, but I don't think anyone's looking for a good Latin pedigree for those words either.   ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do scholarly sources use either the term "Daleks" or "Cybermen"? Of course not. But they do describe the term Megacity. Cheers, Castncoot (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument is being...exterminated. Exterminate! :) ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How very classy of you. Castncoot (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just not a general nor common word (and indeed, it is not for New York City) it is specialized and basically used by the UN drafters of the report to discuss and illustrate problematic urbanization in "agglomerations" across the globe and the issues that are happening and will happen because almost all such agglomerations are recent, accelerating, and are very poor, in poor places in the "Global South". So, how will the world deal with such a massive change in human history, where everyone lives on top of each other and all arable land is far away, if it is even environmentally sustainable.  It has basically little or nothing to do with the subject of the New York City article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that was indeed a constructive comment, Alanscottwalker. I think if we can all communicate like this instead of using sarcasm, we'll get somewhere. Look, this is where I'm coming from, and perhaps people might be interested to achieve the same goal. For just a minute at least, keep in mind that a source code parameter is just a filler; perhaps it should read "identity", rather than "settlement_type" – but ultimately, it is just a filler. What I would like to convey to the reader right off the bat in the infobox header is two things: 1) first of all, that New York City is a notably large city, more than twice as populous as the next largest U.S. city and with one of the largest economies in the world. Keep in mind that many other global cities are national capitals, and that the title of capital should rightfully take precedence as their descriptor. On the other hand, New York City is not the capital of the United States – and it's not even the capital of New York State! But I think that most people would agree that it is not your average, garden variety "city"; and 2) secondly, it is indeed important to convey the geopolitical status of New York City, which is being a city in New York State. Hence, the combination of "Megacity" (which is certainly plausible and technically not incorrect) and "City in New York State" strikes me as a good choice. To me, it seems that one without the other is simply not doing justice to giving the reader the most authentic identity of the city right from the get-go. People, we really have a chance to be dynamic and innovative and get this correct here. So let's all work toward that end. IMHO, simply stating "city" would be caving in to expedience – and that really would be unfortunate. Castncoot (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I already tried to make clear several times above, Megacity, is technically incorrect, misleading, wrong, and should not be used. I don't see that it has any benefit, which might satisfy what your concerns are.  I also see a pretty strong consensus here that 'megacity' should not be used here and 'city' is fine.  As for further edits to this field, after it is returned to 'City', or other fields, I don't see any relationship between the issues, and whatever they are, they most certainly should not delay getting rid of the discreditable 'megacity' use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You win some, you lose some. "City" it is then. Castncoot (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What about "Town"? There is a source for that. (SCNR) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not just "Town". It would have to be "Helluva Town". Station1 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add this tag to the main page
Thanks in advance, 205.189.94.17 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sections maybe but not the whole article; specify affected sections (by number).  IWI  ( chat ) 22:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Interactive map caption
In my opinion, the caption should read "Interactive map showing administrative boundaries" or at least omit the mention of "New York City" as it is obvious the boundary represents New York City with the above caption.  IWI  ( chat ) 16:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tagging  IWI   ( chat ) 17:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The map doesn't show any boundaries except state lines and the red line outlining NYC. Plain "Interactive map" is fine. "Interactive map outlining New York City" is probably slightly better since the city is not clearly labeled on the map itself. Yes, it's obvious to most people, but it hurts nothing. Station1 (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Better to be as precise as possible, IMO, which is why I prefer "Interactive map outlining New York City". Castncoot (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It shows the administrative boundaries of New York.  IWI  ( chat ) 14:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * First, you might be conflating administrative boundaries (police precincts, community boards, etc) with political boundaries. But leaving that aside, the map shows no boundaries at all except state lines. Indeed, it's unusual in its lack of borders. The red outline looks to be superimposed on the map and looks like it might not be 100% accurate when zoomed in. The important thing, that may not be obvious to the reader at first glance, is that it's interactive. That the red outlines NYC (as opposed to anything else) is much more obvious, but maybe not to every possible reader, so ""Interactive map outlining New York City" is the most accurate and useful caption. Station1 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018
Add a subsection under "Environment" that is called "Air Quality." Under this subsection, please include the following:

"According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database, the annual average PM2.5 concentration in 2016 was 7 micrograms per cubic metre, which is 3 micrograms below the recommended limit of the WHO Air Quality Guidelines for the annual mean PM2.5. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) partners with Queens College to conduct the New York Community Air Survey (NYCCAS) and measure at about 150 locations in New York City. " Arod59881 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅. Station1 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for this. Castncoot (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Disputing the religious numbers
The numbers given in the Religion section are obviously wrong. It says that 59% of New Yorkers are Christian, 18.4% Jewish, and approximately 10% Muslim, followed by 24% Non-Religious, and an unspecified percentage of Buddhists, Hindus, etc., surely adding up to more than 0%. The total number is somewhere north of 111%, so it would seem that editors of each religious group have cherrypicked from sources to exaggerate their numbers. Only the most recent official U.S. Census or Community Survey figure should be used for each religious group, which would end in lower numbers across the board. Omnibus (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing infobox title
I propose changing the infobox title to "New York". Many city's official titles are "City of.." (including Los Angeles, but it isn’t entitled "Los Angeles City" is it). The title exists as a disambiguator only, but the common name that should be used in the infobox is just "New York".  IWI  ( chat ) 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The city's name is "New York". The appended "City" is used for disambiguation purposes, both in our article title and in real life. Station1 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference between LA and NYC is that the former isn't in a state with a similar name. It was recently determined that when people think "New York" on Wikipedia they're apt to be thinking of the city; but being overly explicit, if that's what it is, doesn't hurt here. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Although "New York City / City / City of New York" does look sorta silly, imo. Station1 (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the redundant official_name and settlement_type parameters from the infobox. Problem solved. See WP:PLEONASM. — JFG talk 01:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted. Please get consensus for removing standard infobox parameters that give official title and settlement type, which might seem redundant but are important classificatory items to have (e.g. what if NYC were officially classified as a smaller community and its official name not so similar to its common one?) and are not pleonasm (i.e. a surfeit of words that are truly redundant). Dhtwiki (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've shown the relevant parts of the infobox here. I agree that the longer, redundant form looks silly. It's not the job of a highly visible infobox to convey "important classificatory items" – categories are. The method of generating short descriptions from infoboxes is also problematic. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the infobox title could be changed to New York. I also agree that we can't remove the classificatory terms, as redundant as they may sound. But if we change the infobox title to just "New York", this should also solve the redundancy problem. Castncoot (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would people agree then to just changing the infobox title to New York? That particular change per se doesn't seem to be raising much objection. As far as the remainder of the standard infobox parameters, that would be a much more detailed discussion. Castncoot (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing the infobox title to "New York" would yield the following three lines: "New York", "City", then "City of New York". It looks just as silly as the current version, and it introduces a mismatch between the infobox title and the article title. My solution, keeping just "New York City", is much cleaner. The information about the official name is already in the first sentence of the article, so we are not obscuring that fact. The classification as a city is conveyed by the category . There is no compelling reason to keep it in the infobox. The short description for search hints can and should be provided manually, and that's already the case with . None of the arguments to keep the extra infobox parameters has any tangible justification. — JFG talk 08:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to "New York" also, and the fact that me and agree on something (which we usually don't) is surely a good sign. I don't understand why it is such an issue to have a "mismatch" between the title and infobox. Every state article (Texas, New Jersey) does this and nobody cares there. It would look how it looks on the right  IWI  ( chat ) 13:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling this infobox header is a tough dilemma that's not going to please everyone. Personally, my preference is the one at the right. Castncoot (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha. Never thought I'd see the day where the use or absence of a single word is described as a "tough dilemma".  IWI  ( chat ) 16:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, I live on the other side of the Atlantic. Over here, it's just known as New York. I'm pretty sure this fact is the same in the city itself. We should definitley be using the common name at the top of the infobox.  IWI  ( chat ) 16:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The examples of states that you mention actually lean in the direction of simplicity. They just say "State of Texas", not "Texas" then "State" then "State of Texas". The similar solution here is to keep only "New York City" or "City of New York". I'd support either. — JFG talk 17:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to debate a standard on thousands of articles. The best I can agree with is omitting the "City of New York" and changing the top to "New York".  IWI  ( chat ) 17:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mentioned above is displayed on the right also.  IWI  ( chat ) 17:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My first choice is New York, New York at the top of the infobox, but New York City is second. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Due to New York being a megacity (like LA), we omit the state name. Looks like this will be difficult.  IWI  ( chat ) 17:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not this megacity nonsense again, that was already covered on this page -- at any rate, some people do not seem to understand states and American cities (eg. it's just not the same as in Europe or in particular, London) and anything that can help them clear that up is what an encyclopedia is good for. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just take a look on the left at just how ridiculous what you are proposing looks. LA and NYC omit the state, this was agreed upon at some point.  IWI  ( chat ) 17:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "it's just not the same as in Europe or in particular, London", ?  IWI  ( chat ) 17:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It does not look ridiculous, New York, New York is the subject and yes it's a City (are you surprised by that?), see also Chicago, and (and yes that other infobox too should go back to Los Angeles, California, also). As for the rest, tell me what you know about American states and cities, do you have any understanding of the relationship, at all? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're assuming I don't know anything, purely because of where I am from. What do you mean by the "relationship"?  IWI  ( chat ) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You're the one who touted where you are from, so you are the one who apparently thinks that's relevant (I did not assume, I said, it seems). If you don't know what relationship means, it further suggests you don't know (not anything, this ), do some study. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This has gone from a civil discussion to this. I was AGF up until now; I'll take that as a personal attack. Do you mean the relationship between a state and a city? Your wording is confusing.  IWI  ( chat ) 18:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you taking that as a personal attack is ridiculous. What's not to understand about "tell me what you know about American states and cities, do you have any understanding of the relationship"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "the relationship", the relationship between what?  IWI  ( chat ) 18:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I said American states and cities then that's the relationship the question is talking about. Another question, do you know the web guide to this place, https://www.nycgo.com/ ? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I know states are self governing, and in some respects, so are cities. I still son't see how this is relevant.  IWI  ( chat ) 18:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A relationship, not 'these are these' and 'these are sometimes these'. So, if that is all you know, than why would you resist learning more? All I suggested was someone can learn something by pondering and studying, "New York, New York", rather than stopping at, 'oh, I know New York', because this is an encyclopedia, it invites going deeper off what the reader already thinks they know. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If you mean do I know what "New York, New York" means, then I do. New York is in the state of New York. I was merely stating that we don’t need this at the top of the infobox. What exactly in relation to this discussion don’t I know?  IWI  ( chat ) 19:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, please observe this, which was ultimately removed. I do agree with you to some degree but others said that it was wrong. My point was that it appears a bit repetitive with 3 "New York"s next to each other.  IWI  ( chat ) 22:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm also fine with leaving the infobox header the way it is now. There's something to be said for longevity, and this version has been around for a long time overall. Castncoot (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:JFG. The shortest form (2nd above) contains no redundancy, and further details about administrative divisions are shown in the infobox, so nothing is lost. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing the settlement_type will not go down well with people who aren’t in this discussion. That idea complete goes against a standard on thousands of articles. Furthermore, the reason the "city" in "New York City" should be removed is not because of redundancy but because it acts as a disambiguator in the title, and is not the common name of the city.  IWI  ( chat ) 03:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This is hopeless, no consensus means keep it the same. Is anyone willing to compromise their ideas? I’m open to most except: As these go against conventions and overall standards.  IWI  ( chat ) 02:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The removal of settlement_type
 * The replacement of the name with just the official name
 * I'd be willing to entertain "New York City" plus "City", or "New York" plus "City". In both cases we can ditch the official_name parameter. Still I much prefer keeping only one title: "New York City". — JFG talk 06:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Either just "New York" on the first line, or that plus "City" on the second line is best. Its name is "New York" and it is legally and by common definition a "city". The latter is obvious but not incorrect. A third line is definitely unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also support no official name with the name "New York" at the top.  IWI  ( chat ) 13:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with eliminating the third parameter (the official name). I believe we have at least a leaning consensus toward accepting this. Let's try it on for size. Castncoot (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that, instead of removing parameters, you comment out such parameters, or at least their value fields.  and   are common parameters that people are apt to try to add, if they don't find them in the infobox. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve added a warning against adding the parameter back.  IWI  ( chat ) 18:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also support implementing the removal of the official_name parameter on all obvious instances (i.e. "city of...") project-wide.  IWI  ( chat ) 19:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I would support "New York, New York", .  IWI  ( chat ) 16:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks settled by showing "New York" and "City". Let's keep it stable for a while. — JFG talk 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well, thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Protocol for this is at WP:INFOBOXGEO however I do see this as an exception because of the fact the second line would say City.--Moxy (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a clarifying sentence there about dabbed titles, using São Paulo (state) as an example. Station1 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sentence on 911 terrorism
The article contains the following very long sentence:

"The city and surrounding area suffered the bulk of the economic damage and largest loss of human life in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks when 10 of the 19 terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center and United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, and later destroyed them, killing 2,192 civilians, 343 firefighters, and 71 law enforcement officers who were in the towers and in the surrounding area."

I think this needs to be divided up and that some info, such as "10 of the 19 terrorists" removed as too much detail. I recently made such a revision, but was reverted. Attic Salt (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "The city suffered the bulk of the economic damage and largest loss of human life in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Two of the four airliners highjacked that day were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, destroying them and killing 2,192 civilians, 343 firefighters, and 71 law enforcement officers." Station1 (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This suggested text is very welcome. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sentence on climate
The article contains the following very long (and confusing) sentence:

"Winters are cold and damp, and prevailing wind patterns that blow offshore temper the moderating effects of the Atlantic Ocean; yet the Atlantic and the partial shielding from colder air by the Appalachians keep the city warmer in the winter than inland North American cities at similar or lesser latitudes such as Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis."

A few problems, prevailing winds blow FROM offshore, and "temper the moderating" is confusing. I recently tried to make related revisions, but was reverted. Attic Salt (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I read "blow offshore" as an onshore wind (i.e. blowing from the shore) (from the northwest, given airport runway configurations). Dhtwiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that interpretation would be incorrect. Exactly my point. Attic Salt (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored my fix to this confusing bit of text. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that interpretation is incorrect. Prevailing winds are generally west to east, aren't they? Station1 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is incorrect. Sea breeze is almost always from offshore to onshore, and as I provided in an edit summary, this situation is born out by long-term statistical observations of New York, see this: . Attic Salt (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you might be misreading that source. It shows winds from the west-northwest in all months except May and June. Station1 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be right. I am confused by the month-to-month chart, which shows tiny vectors I have been interpretting as the wind source direction. The annual average chart (scroll down a bit) shows the exact opposite. Attic Salt (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that chart is showing the percentage of days(?) that wind is coming from that direction, e.g. WNW 19% of the time, NW 14%, SSE 10%, NE 3%, etc. Station1 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Better wind chart. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So, moving this here, "Offshore winds from the Atlantic and the partial shielding of the Appalachians keep the city warmer in the winter than inland North American cities at similar or lesser latitudes such as Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis." It's uncited you have two opposite claims being made in the editing dispute (are they OR?). NOAA suggests the prevailing winds are from the west. [] and on top of that the text gets into uncited claims about other cities, where do those come from? (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where does NOAA say that the prevailing (surface) winds are from the west for NY? I have provided a source that says otherwise . Are we getting confused, here, with high-altitude winds, like the jet stream, that are from the west pretty much globally? Those are not the surface winds of relevance. Attic Salt (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But you still have not provided a source for the sentence. Whatever your or any editors analysis of a table is, we need citations that "directly" contain the conclusions of the sentence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, I have not provided a source, and there wasn't one before I started editing it either. I was simply correcting an error. Removal of the whole sentence from the article is, yes, a reasonable option. Attic Salt (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * New Yorker here, the prevailing surface wind is from the general direction of west (westerlies). If it was from the sea winter would be mild as shit. This is meteorology 101. However even the pretty thin introduction to meteorology book I read showed that in latitudes between about 30 and 60 no octant or hexadecant is the wind direction for way less than 1/8th or 1/16th of the time. Mid-latitude cyclones come every few days (average) and cause wind from any degree of the compass, depending on if they pass to the north or the south. So when the wind's from the southeast it'll get milder which increases average winter temperatures (almost a thousand days of random weather (i.e. a quarter decade of Decembers, that takes 30 years) are needed to make those monthly averages). Finally, that book also had a map of the progression of a strong cold snap and those things come from the far north of the continent and spread south and east. During unusual cold the worst of the cold anomaly is only like 2,000 feet thick thick, thus the Appalachian Mountains act like a saucer rim. Yes cold air flows downhill but between the Deep South states and New Brunswick there's only a few low gaps like the Cumberland Gap in the South and the gap around West Point that leads to a skinny valley which doesn't widen till Lake Ontario. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary on effects of glaciation
The article contains the following discussion under "Early history":

"During the Wisconsinan glaciation, 75,000 to 11,000 years ago, the New York City region was situated at the edge of a large ice sheet over 1,000 feet (300 m) in depth. The ice sheet scraped away large amounts of regolith, leaving the bedrock that serves as the geologic foundation for much of New York City today. Later on, movement of the ice sheet contributed to the separation of what are now Long Island and Staten Island."

For an article on a city, I find this overly technical and somewhat unbalanced. The mention of "Later on" suggests a sequence of events that is not accurate. The glaciation would have done at least two things of relevance here, leave bedrock exposed and shape what would be exposed surface after the retreat of the ice. But this would have been done simultaneously. The effects would be manifest after the ice retreated. Note, the use of the word "regolith" is something I inserted some time ago, to replace incorrect use of the word "soil" (which is not the same thing). Either way, though, some fixing is needed. I suggest something like the following (a refinement of something similar to what I'd inserted before being reverted):

"During the Wisconsinan glaciation, 75,000 to 11,000 years ago, the New York City region was situated at the edge of a large ice sheet over 1,000 feet (300 m) in depth. The erosive movement of the ice (and its subsequent retreat) contributed to the separation of what are now Long Island and Staten Island, and it exposed bedrock that today serves as the foundation for much of the city.[86]"

Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Most bedrock is not exposed, and although important as the foundation of many early Manhattan skyscrapers, I'm not sure it's as important for "much" of the city. Station1 (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Before the glaciers arrived, the bedrock would have been covered by a thick layer of unconsolidated and partially consolidated rock (regolith). This was "scraped" away by the glaciers, leaving exposed bedrock (which is consolidated) when the glaciers retreated. That there is, now, a thin layer of regolith (deposited by subsequent erosion) and soil has not been mentioned (though it could be). I'm not suggesting a rewrite of the whole paragraph, just fix one problem regarding simultaneity, though if others want to rewrite it, please have a go. It won't be easy to summarise so many issues in a short paragraph. Alternatively, the paragraph might be removed entirely. Attic Salt (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to replace second sentence: "The erosive forward movement of the ice (and its subsequent retreat) contributed to the separation of what is now Long Island from Staten Island. That action also left bedrock at a relatively shallow depth, providing a solid foundation for most of Manhattan's skyscrapers." Station1 (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this suggestion. I went ahead and inserted the sentence. Attic Salt (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019
Change footnote 569,

""Downstate Pays More, Upstate Gets More: Does It Matter?". The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government – The Public Policy Research Arm of the State University of New York. December 2011. Archived from the original on May 1, 2016. Retrieved April 27, 2016."

to

"Downstate Pays More, Upstate Gets More: Does It Matter?". The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government – The Public Policy Research Arm of the State University of New York. December 2011."

With an updated, live link to the new location of the article: https://rockinst.org/blog/downstate-pays-upstate-gets-matter/

This change simply replaces an outdated link with a new link to the same article on the Institute's new website. 141.254.80.15 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Done though I kept the archive link per WP:LINKROT in case it goes dead again. ComplexRational (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sentence to possibly move from lead
I don't think that the sentence The city's fast pace has inspired the term New York minute. (near the end of the first paragraph in the lead) should be in the lead. While I think that it would be good in the body, it seems like a particular example of the implications of New York's quick pace that is too specific to be in the lead, which should be a general overview of the topic that doesn't go into trivial specific details. While I agree that the city's fast pace should be mentioned in the lead, I don't think that the lead is the place for trivial instances of this. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. This sort of detail can be removed from the lede. Attic Salt (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

✅ although the new sentence (The city has a fast pace.) sounds somewhat awkward. Is this a problem? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's indeed awkward – a very short sentence of some banality with 3 supporting citations. Further, the term "New York minute" is now not mentioned at all in the body of the article. Was that intended? The section "Culture and contemporary life" needs some editing (the 1st paragraph is jarring), and maybe the term could be mentioned there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agreed that "the city has a fast pace" is indeed awkward. I also agree that if New York minute is in the lede, then the fast pace should be elaborated upon subsequently in the body as well. Castncoot (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

History from 1785-1790
In January 1785, Congress moved to the big apple unofficially.

Then, the state of New York ratified the U.S. Constitution on July 26, 1788. Because of this, Congress voted to keep the capital there until they could settle the matter of a federal district.

For two years, New York City remained the official capital of the U.S.

In 1790, on July 16, President George Washington signed the Residence Act. That Act would establish the new federal district on the banks of the Potomac River.

It would take some time to move there and set up shop, but by 1800, New York City ceded the capital to Washington D.C.

From: http://ilikehistory.com/for-2-years-new-york-city-was-the-capital-of-the-u-s/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.248.216 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi yes, part of that is already discussed in the article, but you are right that the article needs to close that circle about the capital moving from the city in 1790. Hopefully someone will get to it but we need to find a better source. Thanks.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added half a sentence to cover that. Station1 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Great teamwork! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.248.216 (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Station1: You could add also to the end of your sentence: ,where congress reconvened on December 6, 1790. The decision to move the national capital to Philadelphia was made during the negotiations of the Residence_Act and Assumption Bill of 1790. This led to the decision to designate Philadelphia as the temporary capital city of the United States federal government for a period of ten years, until the area which would later become the District of Columbia was ready.

The last sentence of the Compromise and Adoption section in the Residence_Act gives the exact date of the congress officially meeting in Philadelphia.

The second to last sentence of the Compromise and Adoption section in the Residence_Act article gives the exact time frame of the capital being in Philadelphia for 10 years.

A lot of people will want to be really clear on how the national capital moved from NYC, then Philadelphia, and finally the District of Columbia.

There is a good reference also in the Residence_Act in the background section:

During the mid-1780s, numerous locations were offered by the states to serve as the nation's capital, but the Continental Congress could never agree on a site due to regional loyalties and tensions. Proposed sites included: Kingston, New York; Nottingham Township in New Jersey; Annapolis; Williamsburg, Virginia; Wilmington, Delaware; Reading, Pennsylvania; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; New York City; Philadelphia; and Princeton; among others. The Southern states refused to accept a capital in the North, and vice versa. Another suggestion was for there to be two capitals, one in the North and one in the South.

The United States Congress was established in 1789, upon ratification of the United States Constitution, and New York City remained the temporary capital.

The entire paragraph may have to be tweaked a little like this:

In 1785, the assembly of the Congress of the Confederation made New York City the national capital after the war. New York was the last capital of the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation and the first capital under the Constitution of the United States. In 1789, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was inaugurated; the first United States Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States each assembled for the first time, and the United States Bill of Rights was drafted, all at Federal Hall on Wall Street. By 1790, New York had surpassed Philadelphia to become the largest city in the United States, but by the end of that year the national capital was moved to Philadelphia.

Proposed edits: remove "shortly" because 1776-1785 is actually 9 years which is not shortly, that is a decade.

New York was the capital of the U.S. or seat_of_government when the Articles of Confederation were written, and the temporary capital or seat of government when the Constitution of the United States was ratified.

By 1790, New York had surpassed Philadelphia to become the largest city in the United States, but by the end of that year the national capital was moved to Philadelphia, where congress reconvened on December 6, 1790. The decision to move the national capital to Philadelphia was made during the negotiations of the Residence_Act and Assumption Bill of 1790. This led to the decision to designate Philadelphia as the temporary capital city of the United States federal government for a period of ten years, until the area which would later become the District of Columbia was ready.

Station1 and Alanscottwalker: Thanks for checking and getting involved on this article improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.248.216 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the Residence Act, so people can find that info there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for including the Residence Act link. Done!

I have one more point of topic for this Section: New York delegation actually ratified the Constitution after it had been officially ratified already by the number of states needed.

See and notice that: 1788/06/21 Sat - Constitution Ratified 1788/06/25 Wed - Virginia ratifies 1788/07/02 Wed - Congress is informed the Constitution has been ratified 1788/07/26 Sat - New York ratifies

Since NYC was the capital at the time and the New York delegation ratified the US Constitution after it was officially ratified, was that the real reason the capital moved to Philadelphia pursuant to the Residence Act? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.248.216 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox: interactive map kills iOS app
The interactive map is very nice in Chrome desktop. However, it's crashing the Wikipedia app on iOS. Steps to repro: This may be considered a bug with the app, or even iOS, or perhaps with the Maplink template. Whichever, it's a problem for this article. The bug is not just here; I discovered it while implementing the code on another article. I've only tested this on three iOS different devices, maybe we could get some eyes on it? --Cornellier (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) In the article in the app, tap Quick Facts to open the infobox.
 * 2) Scroll down the "Interactive map" and tap it. The screen flickers white then returns to its previous state.
 * 3) Tap the map again. The screen goes almost completely white.
 * 4) Can no longer interact with the Wikipedia app, and it has to be force killed.

Religion stats
added a Disputed section banner to the religious demographic section in December, noting that the numbers for different religious and non-religious groups add up to over 100% and suggesting using the U.S. Census or Community Survey. These particular sources don't seem to track religious affiliation, but if we can find a RS that does, we could certainly use that in addition to the current sources. In the meantime, disagreement between RSs is not in itself grounds for an accuracy dispute (WP:NOTTRUTH), as is indicated by the banner text: "Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced". All the statements that contain numerical claims appear to have at least one reliable citation, so I'm removing the banner. Eperoton (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019
Change "City residents and businesses also spent an additional $4.1 billion". The word spent should be replaced by sent. 66.75.241.238 (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Ammarpad (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Big Apple
"Big Apple" is a popular nickname for New York City, as seen in a separate article about just the nickname. Why, then, is it never once mentioned in this article, except in references (I checked with the "search in page" function in Mozilla Firefox)? J I P &#124; Talk 00:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several nicknames for NYC as shown in List of nicknames of New York City which is linked from the infobox. That link ought to be incorporated into the article itself, possibly into the "Further information" note at . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Another nickname I was missing is Gotham, a name also used in literature, including Adgar Allan Poe, as I've read in this German article: de:Gotham City (New York). Looking at the linked list from above, which only includes a few major nicknames, it does not seem in any way too large or extensive to be directly included as a section or subsection into the article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate date of last 100 degree day
In the article’s climate section in the third paragraph it states the city’s last 100 degree day was on July 23, 2011. This is incorrect, the last 100 degree day as of the time I write this at the Central Park official reporting station was on July 18, 2012 as demonstrated here here here and here. The first 2 of these 4 sources are reports from the National Weather Service which operates all official weather stations. This error should be promptly corrected for the sake of the article’s general accuracy. 47.20.191.200 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Unreadable code in text
This edit in May added the code "b122839862_gravity_restricts" in the text of the article. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There were apparently two such additions in May. Someone apparently has taken out the one in the infobox. I just got the other. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent substantial reverts by Castncoot
Recently, has undone a substantial number of edits to the New York City article:. One, in particular, was very large, and done with the barest of justification: -- this edit was also done in such a way as to avoid an "undo" tag. I asked Castncoot to notify the editors whose work he was undoing:. Since this notification has not occurred, I am making it here to and. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been warned before not to make speculative and personal attacks. Also, get your facts straight. Everyone gets a ping when their edits are reverted. All autoconfirmed users are open to edit this article. Common etiquette is to discuss proposed massive wholesale changes in longstanding material, much of it built by consensus. The proposed new montage was terrible, plain and simple, with unacceptable resolution. As were several of the intervening edits, made without proper justification or attention to context. The correct coordinates need to be stated, not the incorrect ones. Finally, how can you assume I'm a "he"? Not good. Castncoot (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with restoring the images as to how they were. Not so sure about restoring the multiple cites in the lead to non contentious claims, which I suspect is what Attic Salt was getting at, and which I would have to disagree with. Ceoil  (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What happened???--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, much of that etiquette when I have revamped whole articles never led to a consensus. Usually others seem to thank me for the edits. Next, I apologize for the brighter colors and higher resolution photos. Finally, I am discouraged to edit and you won't have to deal with me again.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We all learn by our mistakes. Nobody is saying that you should give up, just that we disagree with you in this instance. You edited, were reverted: no big deal, happens to us all. Ceoil  (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019
change
 * subdivision_type               = Country
 * subdivision_name               =
 * subdivision_type2              = State
 * subdivision_name2              =  New York

to


 * subdivision_type               = Country
 * subdivision_name               = United States
 * subdivision_type2              = State
 * subdivision_name2              = New York

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

Easier to read in edit mode. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." Alduin2000 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019
change | subdivision_type = Country | subdivision_name = | subdivision_type2 = State | subdivision_name2 = New York to | subdivision_type = Country | subdivision_name = United States | subdivision_type2 = State | subdivision_name2 = New York

As previously pointed out MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes."

In Template:Infobox settlement the following parameters are provided

| image_flag             = | flag_alt               =

However, there is no explicit, or implicit, inclusion of {{flagu| or {{flag 82.14.227.91 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * {{Not done}}. Personally, I think including the icons is silly.  However, the MOS page you cite explicitly permits them in this circumstance.  I looked at a handful of other large US cities, and they all include the icons as well.  Therefore, I'm going to decline this request unless you can establish a consensus for the change on the talk page here (or more broadly, at a relevant MOS page).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Population Density
Hi all, the population density on this article uses the square mileage of NYC including the water, not just land area. This makes the population density much lower than it actually is:. Can someone correct this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaysette (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reducing references in lead
The intro section of this article appears to me to have become quite clogged with references. Per MOS:LEADCITE, I'd like to see some of these moved to the body. Sdkb (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Gallery of huge images
Clearly a problem with 4 HUGE panoramas causing an unbalance and causing the whole article to need side scrolling. What can be done to fix this long standing problem of the kids picture book section? Has come up many times per WP:Gallery - WP:Undue - MOS:ACCIM but the article still has the same problem despite many editors voicing a concern over and over again. Images below are longer then some articles as a whole- Moxy 🍁 21:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Will be removing gallery since no valid reply to MOS concerns.-- Moxy 🍁 01:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Locations
I like to think my eyesight is generally good. Therefore, I believe I'm correct that New York City is located in the southeast part of New York state. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2020
I want to edit this page. I believe that your information is not all correct. Thesquash101 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Stonewall Riots coverage is excessive
In the history section, the paragraph devoted to the Stonewall Riots is almost twice as large as the few sentences covering 9/11. Does anyone else think this is a tad absurd? - 14.203.38.101 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also compare it to the very brief mention of the New York City draft riots. Either these and other significant events need to be greatly expanded upon, or the coverage of the Stonewall Riots needs to be reduced to no more than a sentence, because it is completely out of proportion. - 14.203.38.101 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really not, they're both a short paragraph. Its significance is comparable: it is the impetus and single-most-important event of the LGBT rights movement, leading to widespread LGBT acceptance and civil rights, perhaps giving it even longer-lasting importance than a massive terrorist attack. ɱ  (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this heavily. 9/11 is far more important to the history of New York City than the Stonewall riots. If people want to read a history of the LGBT movement, they can go to the History of the Gay Community. New York City is not the place for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.92 (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations in the lead
I see a bit of editwarring going on, and I suggest folks not do that. Nor engage or trade accusations of sockpuppetry. I think it is a good idea however to talk about the amount of citations used in the lead section. It probably can be reduced. Per MOS:CITELEAD, the lead should avoid redundant citations for statements that are cited elsewhere. Controversial statements or those about living people are exceptions. I count 76 citations in the version from yesterday, including one sentence with 16. I bet we don't need everyone of those. Again, please discuss, don't editwar even if you think you're right.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 02:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Patrick. I got a bit heated for sure, but its a longstanding problem; needless overciting trivial facts, and to newspapers and blogs no less. Frankly when I see a claim with three or four cites, I think "must be dodgy". Also all the blue greatly hinders readability, no to mention its a nightmare to edit. Ceoil  (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thats where I'm coming from. Its best now to let others talk. Ceoil  (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to cut down the number of cites in the lead, preferably to one-fifth the current number at most. Let's keep in mind that if any piece of info is in the lead, then it must also be in the body. epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the reverts was that a large amount of info was removed. Maybe this was a misunderstanding? I could understand that. Ceoil  (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * care to join this 101st conversation? Why do you support the amount of refs in the lede? ɱ  (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that WP:RS trumps WP: CITELEAD and WP:MOS. I'd rather emphasize credibility over style. For example, removing a cite that supports the sweeping statement that the NYSE and NASDAQ are the world's two largest equities exchanges is nonsensical. When the number of references interferes with the readability of a particular statement, yes, then I agree that there are too many refs at that spot. Castncoot (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Please let's refrain from combative editing and discuss. If there are uncited sentences, why not use Template:Citation needed, and we can see which are still needed?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 00:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The body has two refs for the NYSE/NASDAQ claim, that should really be sufficient. Nobody's even gonna question that claim anyhow, the numbers prove it. ɱ  (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Ceoil  (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"The Center School (Manhattan)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Center School (Manhattan). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The current lead sentence is absurd. The official name of the city is the "City of New York". Someone has insisted to change it in defiance of BRD, as I reverted it. They seem to have reverted it back. What is the consensus?  IWI  ( chat ) 01:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a source we might cite for the official name being "City of New York"? I can find instances of that title being used, but I couldn't find an authoritative source declaring that to be the official name. Attic Salt (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From 1898-1938 the official name was explicitly "The City of New York" (capital T, capital C) according to the City Charter passed by the State Legislature. After adoption of the new charter in 1938, there was no longer any official name in the sense of a law saying "the official name of the city shall be..." but the charter itself referred to the city as "New York", being careful to use a lower case "c" in "city" whenever that was needed to avoid ambiguity. That is also how the New York State Constitution always refers to the city, as do various state laws. Other official documents use various forms, including "New York", "New York City", "City of New York", and "NYC". But all that is irrelevant to the lead, since every city's article of which I'm aware starts the lead with the city's common name, which usually matches the article's title. It's true that in New York's case, the "City" in the title, while commonly used, is there as part of natural disambiguation, so it would be proper to start the lead with either "New York" or "New York City". Station1 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

please change
Air quality

According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database,[578] the annual average concentration in New York City's air of particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) was 7.0 micrograms per cubic meter, or 3.0 micrograms

According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database,[578] the annual average concentration in New York City's air of particulate matter measuring 2.5 Micrometres or less (PM2.5) was 7.0 micrograms per cubic meter, or 3.0 micrograms

The second paragraph is the improved version, writin microns is discouraged by the BIPM.

--MajorValerian (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that was quick. MajorValerian (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

New York City (Disambiguation) listed twice
In the "For Other Uses" section at the top of the page, there are two links to the page New York City (Disambiguation). I am not yet autoconfirmed and request that someone remove the redundant link. Netherin5 (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for pointing that out. Station1 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020
BigDawg75 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wish to change to New York City, New York
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  JTP (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)