Talk:New York City/Archive 23

Is the Statue of Liberty both part of the city's history and also a landmark?
User:Nikkimaria has repeatedly removed content regarding the Statue of Liberty, most recently tagging the article with a copy edit tag, arguing that there is "repetition of content". In this edit, Nikkimaria removed a sentence about the statue welcoming immigrants; I reinserted the material here, as the details of the significance of the statue to immigrants was a pivotal role of the statue.. Nikkimaria removed this again here saying it "Already appears below"; The material was reinserted here, with additional material explaining the role that the statue played as a symbol to immigrants.. In response, Nikkimaria in this edit, Nikkimaria removed the Statue of Liberty as a landmark, with the edit summary "rm dup".

Nikkimaria seems to be arguing that the Statue of Liberty can only be in the history section OR listed as a landmark and that we have to choose one or the other. My position is that it is a fundamental fact that the Statue of Liberty is recognized both as a symbol to immigrants during the ‎Late 19th and early 20th century AND that it remains as a fundamental landmark. What does the community think? Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not my position. My argument is that we should not be repeating exactly the same material about the statue in multiple sections. We are doing less now, but we're still repeating the bit about "ideals of liberty and peace" in two sections (plus an image caption).


 * However, this is not the only instance of repetition of content, so a broader review to address this issue is warranted. Other examples include the "New York minute", being the setting for films and TV programs, and Madison Avenue being metonymous for advertising. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, It's hard to take that position seriously after this edit, in which you removed any mention whatsoever of the Statue of Liberty as a landmark, which did not serve any constructive purpose? If you have a genuine interest in avoiding repetition of exactly the same material, why not show some small measure of good faith by editing the material to make it sufficiently different, rather than simply removing the material out of spite? If you are genuinely building an encyclopedic article about New York City, surely you must agree that the Statue of Liberty is a landmark and that the removal of that detail from a section about landmarks was inherently disruptive? Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a section about landmarks, it's a section about tourism. With or without that sentence, the section doesn't mention most major landmarks.


 * Greater improvement would be achieved by removing/relocating that whole paragraph, since neither "New York Minute" nor the use of the Empire State Building as a measuring stick is relevant to tourism, and there is already reference to landmarks in the preceding paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree somewhat. The Empire State Building is relevant to tourism, as art deco architecture is one of the main tourism draws. Andre🚐 04:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve never heard this. Do you have any information to support it? Seasider53 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a whole article on it Art Deco architecture of New York City. It's more of common knowledge than that I'm pulling it from any particular source, but surely one could be found easily. The best one I found on a cursory look was this: Andre🚐 04:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The claim in that paragraph isn't about its architecture, or anything to do with its tourism draw - it's about it being used as a unit of measure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That I agree may be trivial or silly, but a fun factoid. Andre🚐 04:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Alan, the Statue of Liberty, and its welcoming immigrants, are two of the most critically important aspects of New York City. I know it personally firsthand as my ancestors came through Ellis Island. Andre🚐 03:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * All landmarks are part of a city's history, and are imbued with intentional and acquired meaning. I would keep that in mind when thinking about potential redundancies. Remsense  留  03:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Very true, but the Statue of Liberty is a renowned symbol of New York City. It appeared on the NY license plate for a number of years, it was also used in a version of the NY logo. Just about the only more common and recognizable symbols are the I <3 NY logo and the NY Yankees logo. Andre🚐 04:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is true to some degree with many landmarks that are seen as emblems of their city, is the overall point I'm making. The meaning imbued in the landmark doesn't necessarily need to be presented on its own from the landmark itself. Remsense  留  04:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good point, but, the Statue of Liberty moreso than any random stadium. It was a gift to the US from France to symbolize that alliance, the poem is relevant, "tired masses, huddled, yearning to breathe free," and the period of time during NYC's major boom and growth was due to immigration in the 1800s and early 1900s. It's one of the most relevant things to New York City. In my very humble opinion as a highly biased person as a NYer from NYers from NYers. Andre🚐 04:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a justification for viewing NYC as unique compared to any other world city here. One could be equally romantic about the Eiffel Tower or Tiananmen Square. Remsense  留  04:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again biased but again disagree and I think a case can be made there. NYC is uniquely important to the American economy. I mean, yes, comparable to say London or Tokyo or Paris, but not any world city, it's in the elite top 5 to be sure, on most metrics that I know of. But I get what you mean. However, I do think there is a very significant source-based case for NYC exceptionalism on many things. Specifically as pertaining to the Statue of Liberty - as a landmark, it's not unlike a modern Seven Wonders of the World. In fact I believe it is a direct architectural homage to the Colossus, if I'm not mistaken. Andre🚐 04:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare the article Rio de Janeiro which prominetly features Cristo Redentor. Andre🚐 07:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The statue is only mentioned in the text once. My quibble was with potentially reduplicated mentions because of the cultural importance of a landmark being treated as a topic in itself, in addition to the landmark as a physical object/place. I think they would ideally be mentioned together, giving an adequate, holistic description of the landmark. Remsense  留  08:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Having looked over both sections and comparing their current state to what they were before the edit warring, I see an improvement now in how the welcoming of immigrants bit was removed from the tourism section, since this information was repetitious and not needed there. I don't have a problem with liberty and peace though, because it's shorter, it was the original intent of the statue's donors, and it's more generic info that could apply to both sections.  Stony Brook  babble 18:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Britain did not exist until 1707
The article states that New York came under British Control in 1664. This is impossible since Britain did not come into existence until 1707. Hence it came under English control. 2A02:1811:424:B800:5320:429:8728:B2E6 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Historic population table
I just looked back at the table when New York City was the featured article and — I'm sure we're all shocked to hear this — the table was much shorter than it is now. Why do we need it broken down by decade for every century, especially when significant fluctuations have rarely happened? Seasider53 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Although I restored that table (which apparently has no [Hide] default) after 's good-faith removal. I'm looking from the other direction and wondering how important those percentage changes in the second column are in a general article, as opposed to the Demography subarticle.
 * Perhaps we need to create our own single-column collapsible outside-the-template chart, pre-set at either Show or Hide. See also 's quotation from Summary style in the discussion on this Talk Page: "...overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles..."
 * —— Shakescene (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the level of detail is more appropriate to the subarticle. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've just delated that table altogether because it gives inconsistent numbers: in some years for what is now the Five-Borough city, sometimes just for the old pre-consolidation city (Manhattan or Manhattan + all or part of what is now The Bronx}. For an article about the City as a whole, Mahhattan's population in, say, 1840 is a relatively-trivial detail. Fortunately, the U.S. Census worked this out about a century ago — for example, peeling off and including the bits of then-Westchester County that now lie within the Bronx, so that there is a consistent population total from the first U.S. Census in 1790 to the present. See the references in User talk:Shakescene.


 * It's certainly straightforward though tedious to create a stand-alone one-column table with consistent coverage (at least since 1790), but I'm not up to trying that now.


 * Cheers to and all. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's my proposed single-column table (no % change), with the Census' numbers for the current five-borough area. (References and citations to be added). We need a consistent area (which we can't do before the First Census of 1790) to avoid a highly-misleading jump (+125%) from the then-unconsolidated City in 1890 to the City of Greater New York in 1900. (If necessary, any or all of the four earlier estimates before 1790 can be mentioned in the prose text.) —— Shakescene (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you want to use only census data from 1790, then this is a breathtakingly unnecessary effort to override the functionality of Template:US Census population, which is prescribed by WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and used in virtually every article for every American city, from the largest to the smallest, across the nation. It even includes functionality to include explanatory notes if there has been a territorial change; there is no "highly-misleading jump" from 1890 to 1900, there is a change in the size of the city, something that happens and has happened nationwide and something that is thoroughly explained in the article. It has been used in cities that grew in size over the years and those that have shrunk. The United State Census Bureau has the data available from 1790 to 1990 at this source. Why are we reinventing the wheel, arguing about trivialities and failing to follow the basic consensus followed across the country in thousands upon thousands of articles? Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If that template was used to present the data given in Shakescene's table, would you both be happy with that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With appropriate sources and notes describing changes in territory, of course. And, Nikkimaria, I assume that the resulting reduction in article size of 237 characters would have you calling for a ticker tape parade along the Canyon of Heroes? Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * could you provide the sources you used? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Briefly, see User_talk:Shakescene, where I cite the Encyclopedia of NYC. (Similar figures appear in some World Almanacs that I no longer own and in "Population of States and Counties of the United States: 1790 to 1990/From the Twenty-one Decennial Censuses/March 1996/U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/BUREAU OF THE CENSUS/.../Compiled and edited by Richard L. Forstall)"
 * I wasn't planning to post this on the article page without citations. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure, but if you could provide the full citations, I can post a version using the template proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alansohn speaking of citations, please see reference number 223 in the article. It has an error message, likely stemming from your recent changes. 13:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Seasider53 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A controversy section
So far this article doesn’t have a controversy I think it would be needed after all New York City is one of the largest cities in the world and I know a lot goes wrong there. If there is a reason for the lack of that section I wanna ask why? Thank you. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Because such sections are generally discouraged - if there are specific controversies that merit inclusion they should be incorporated into the appropriate existing section. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering my question. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Including"
Wondering what should be a reasonable amount of examples of, say, institutions or businesses given in the prose after the word “including” or “for example”? I’m thinking four would be a fair number. Seasider53 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , wondering how you came up with the exact number four, no more, no less, regardless of circumstances or relevance? What would your inclusion criteria be to include the exact four you would allow to appear in the article and exclude all others? Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think four (or three; definitely not five or more) would reduce the chances of readers losing the will to live while perusing the article. It would also reduce the chances of us listing every institution or business after we've written "including" or "for example". Maybe there are only four examples of certain institutions or businesses. Seasider53 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Climate chart/weatherbox
@Shakescene Thank you for the kind and civil explanation on your revert; I definitely understand the complex nature of the detailed climate chart. My issue with the simplified one is that it leaves out information that is, in my opinion, too important for the city to be left to the climate article (like precipitation days, snowfall and sunshine), as well as the fact that depending on the screen resolution, it does not even appear alongside the climate section.

Maybe we can find a compromise in something similar to the climate chart on the Istanbul page (compare Climate of Istanbul (detailed) to the main article (simplified)); leaving behind record temperatures, annual mean max mins, relative humidity, dew points etc. Would that be good enough? Uness232 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * In my view...... As a major super city this article should look like a country article because of all the sub articles affiliated with the topic. Summary style Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair, however I am still uncomfortable with removing something that provides what I think of as important info (especially for a city with a transitional, not entirely agreed-upon climate) and is a pretty standard inclusion in other large cities like Tokyo, Paris and such, whether they have climate pages or not. The simplified weatherbox also has problems as it moves with photos on the right side of the page, and may not align with the climate section depending on your resolution. Uness232 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A country has many different climates. NYC has one essential climate with minor variations within. Also, (see climate section) is very different from its Canadian counterpart, . We should stick to the established guidelines standard for U.S. city articles, the overwhelming preponderance of which contain a weatherbox on the main page. Castncoot (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand, or perhaps the confusion arises from me using climate chart/weatherbox interchangeably, which I shouldn't have done; but I was arguing for the removal of the simplified template that you did remove recently, and the addition of a somewhat simplified version of the template that Shakescene was opposing, so I don't exactly understand your stance (or why you replied to me) here. Is it that you want the full, detailed weatherbox?
 * By the way, what I meant by transitional climate was more technical and referred to Köppen, not that the city has many microclimates. Uness232 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to see restoration of the standard full weatherbox that has been there and at most major U.S. city articles since time immemorial. Castncoot (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that; the simplified box was a compromise I offered in response to Shakescene. However, I do see his point to some extent; the weatherbox is highly detailed and includes detail that would not interest the average reader, and those interested could quite simply go to the Climate of New York City article. The weatherbox could be reduced to more essential pieces of data, while a more complete box is moved to the Climate of- page.
 * This process could also be repeated, if necessary, in other large cities with Climate of- pages (or not, if thought unnecessary in that context). As far as I understand, the guidelines for climate sections do not mention what needs to be included in a graph; so I don't see how the guideline would be an obstacle to this if consensus is obtained here. Uness232 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @The 19th One: normally WP:BRD would apply (although it is not mandated), but that page speaks about reverting an edit by a single user, whereas this involves more than one. Since one user can't be addressed on their talk page directly, the discussion would happen here. Seasider53 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Seasider53 I see. I'm sorry that I misunderstood the rules.
 * I also got an idea for a compromise.
 * Maybe we can include the weather box in this article, but have it automatically collapsed? I have noticed that many other city pages do this. This way there would not be too much clutter on the weather section, while the precise data is sill visible for those who are interested in it.
 * Does this sound good? The 19th One (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine, though I'm not sure if that addresses the original concern; which was not that there was too much clutter, but rather that the weatherbox itself was too complex. Uness232 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This may also be partly why the article became infinitely too large until the recent reduction by several editors, in that: "Well, Los Angeles' article is this size, so I will endeavor to make the New York one even bigger, because I think it deserves to be." Yes, a weather box won't affect things greatly, but the principle is the same. Seasider53 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A complete removal of the weatherbox, however, will deprive readers of some of the most necessary climate information, precluding even a simple comparison between cities. We can not even list the mean temperature of every month in prose (I suppose we could if we wanted to increase superfluous text); we need a weatherbox for that. Uness232 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My syntax skills for autocollapse, etc., are rusty but this is what one trial would look like:
 * Presumably, the internal footnotes would anchor in the References section of the whole NUYC article, rather than the way they do on this Talk Page.
 * —— Shakescene (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that weatherboxes are usually collapsed in-template, so something like this:
 * Though I remember your line of argumentation being about "those big ugly weatherboxes [being] too  intimidating". I do not know how collapsing the weatherbox would improve readability of climate data as we would simply be hiding away information, not simplifying it. Uness232 (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments
 * (1) Upon reflection, I realized that in 15 years of editing NYC articles (most notably at The Bronx) and looking at articles about other places, I've never (until this question came up here) even looked at the contents of any  of those boxes. One should never argue over aesthetics, but I'm driven away by the color scheme (resembling a nightmare painting by Van Gogh or Edward Munch's The Scream) and intimidated by what seems to be complex detail. And if it drives me away (which of course is hardly the intention of the template's creators), what about the casual general reader who just wants to get an overview of The Big Apple?
 * (2) There must be someone on this Talk Page who's more experienced at wrangling the complexities of Collapse, Uncollapse, Autocollapse, etc. templates and their syntax. Ironically enough, your collapse opens only one line of the chart, whereas mine opens up to the whole thing.
 * (3) Some readers, however, will be interested in this kind of detail (the mean daily temperature in July or relative humidity in November), or may want to know more once they read the comments or glance at the small chart. They could open the box and/or go to the Climate of New York City subarticle. Which goes to the main point of this page's minimalists:
 * (4) Without reading all those WP policy pages, the reader who looks up an article about something so imporrtant and complex as New York City, the Solar System, India, World War II, Economics, Nuclear physics or Christianity can't and won't expect to see every noteworthy fact on one page, as she or he might for a marginal figure like Ardolph Kline, John Woolley or Pussy Galore, but be able at one sitting to grasp a general picture, with guides to the details in the relevant subarticles about, e.g. the Culture of New York City, Lutheranism, Mumbai, the Phillips Curve, Operation Overlord. Quarks or the Kuyper belt.
 * Regards, —— Shakescene (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shakescene
 * 1) Then collapsing might be our best option.
 * 2) Because I only put one line of data to collapse, as to not extend the talk page unnecessarily. The parameter is standard and comes with the template itself; you just enter the parameter "collapsed = y" on any weatherbox, however many lines it is.
 * 3,4) Fair. I still oppose the small chart, however, for reasons I've already given. I'm okay with a collapsed weatherbox. Uness232 (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shakescene I have WP:BOLDly reintroduced a collapsed weatherbox; perhaps this looks better? Uness232 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3,4) Fair. I still oppose the small chart, however, for reasons I've already given. I'm okay with a collapsed weatherbox. Uness232 (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shakescene I have WP:BOLDly reintroduced a collapsed weatherbox; perhaps this looks better? Uness232 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

We need to update the photograph of the Statue of Liberty.
The existing photograph of the statue is insufficient because it only shows a portion of the statue; I believe it is preferable to show the entire statue rather than just a few pieces. I did not mean to argue that the existing image is inappropriate, but if there is room for improvement on a page, we should.Sheikbaba36524 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The point is to adequately represent the monument, and by far the most representative portion of the monument—the face and upper body—is shown in the image. Also, these images are shown at a very small size to readers, so the more you zoom out, the less many people will be able to see without going out of their way to click on the image.
 * Also, this isn't itself a criterion, but that particular photo was taken specifically for Wikipedia as part of the 2017 edition of the annual WP:Wiki Loves Monuments competition.
 * Also also, the photo you selected was slightly crooked, rotated several degrees counterclockwise in a way that seems unintentional.
 * It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but these are all points often considered with important image placements like these—I think the first is the most important, though. Remsense  诉  10:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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


 * I’m sure we can find someone to create a section on it, maybe with a nice sprinkling of extraneous information for our readers. Seasider53 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Seasider53 Why aren't finances part of the standard layout of municipal articles? 24.164.189.229 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , you are correct about this odd omission. I am attempting to add an appropriately concise summary of the city's mid-1970s fiscal crisis. Whatever is added, rest assured that the usual pack of hyenas, sharks and vultures will circle around to nitpick the details of a major part of the city's history into nothingness, with the usual pedantic mentions of irrelevant essays and demands that the material should appear somewhere else and / or be condensed into seven words or fewer. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope not, though that is what drove me away from other than minor contributions (eg, redirects) at WP. I was actually looking for a model for material on finances in my NYS city. To the he loving devotion to politicians and elections we could add a simple factual discussion of budgets, debt, and taxes, updated annually if possible or to match election cycles. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you look in Government of New York City? If not there, feel free to add to it. On expanding the top level article, see WP:Article size and WP:Summary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of a budget, taxes, debt. Apparently, the City doesn't need any of those things. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Overview
I was going to retract my comment about what I thought was too many examples after the few instances of "including" in the article (such as hospitals), since it was fine on my subsequent readings of the article, but it's just been archived. The article is in very good shape as it stands – by my eyes, at least. Reading how the city is the biggest and best in seemingly every category got very repetitive quickly, but I don't think there's any way around that. Seasider53 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Or how about just removing them? NYC is worse than Boston in terms of top universities for example. It is cringe inducing to read, honestly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, I understand it helps highlight NYC's stature, but listing so many of them diminishes the point of having them at all. Good luck to whoever wants to fight that battle though. Seasider53 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna boldly remove these qualifiers. There is a person who reverts any deletion of these sorts on-sight, but I won't tell who they are. If that person reverts my edit, you would know who am I talking about. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Got ya. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Invitation
There is a move discussion at Talk:New York (state). Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox images suggestion
Hello, I think it's time to discuss the infobox images once again. The first thing to be aware of is that we can't put any sights of NYC in that infobox, that's for sure. I suggest to replace the current image of the Unisphere with File:Unisphere-2 (27835155267).jpg which has higher technical quality and better depicts the Unisphere. Furthermore, we could remove the current image of the Bronx Zoo and replace it with the previous image of Grand Central Terminal, but maybe at another position. Another option is to remove both the image of the Bronx Zoo and the image of the Verrazzano Bridge without replacement – both of which are, according to page view statistics, relatively 'irrelevant' and therefore redundant compared to internationally known places like the Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, or Times Square. Let me know what you think. Tobiasi0 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The point of including the images in the current collage you don't think are relevant is to include at least one image from each of the boroughs. They all need to be represented. New York City is more than just Manhattan. There's no reason to relive or replace any of the current images. oknazevad (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oknazevad do they - even if there is no comparable encyclopedic relevance? Sure, most of the things NYC is known for are located or happening in Manhattan, but trying to include every borough is a case of false balance imho, especially when there are other cities like Vienna out there where you don't try to include every single of the whole 23 districts as well. –Tobias (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is talking about 23 anything, we are talking about 4 boroughs where most of the city is and lives. This is an encyclopedia not a tourism guide. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker right, that's exactly my point. It is an encyclopedia and intended to display topics by their relevance which isn't the case if most of the city is in Manhattan and you try to write an equal amout of text about Staten Island, if there is basically nothing that famous. This wouldn't be an issue if we were specifically talking about the article about Staten Island, but that's not the case. –Tobias (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, we are not writing about Staten Island, we are writing about the whole city. OneAlanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker exactly, and why should we even look at the single boroughs in the infobox, when we try to provide information about the city as a whole? –Tobias (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I already said, because those are where most the city is and lives. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker and I understand that, that's what this is all about. The information about the specific boroughs belong in the corresponding section of the article, not in the infobox or lead section; that's just where they are possibly mentioned once. It is irrelevant how far the infobox covers all boroughs, but how it covers the important locations of the city and if 80% of them are located in Manhattan, then, as a logical conclusion, 80% of the infobox is about Manhattan, regardless of whether 3 out of 5 boroughs aren't represented with even one single image. With this in mind, why keep an image depicting the Verrazzano Bridge instead of replacing it with a picture of Grand Central Terminal, which has about five times as much views? –Tobias (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about popular places, its an article about an entire city. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker and the popular places don't belong to the city? –Tobias (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Popular places are not the city. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker ok, let's try it from another perspective. We seem to have similar arguments, yet arrive at different conclusions. What exactly is the deal breaker regarding popular places for you? I mean, you seem pretty okay with the fact that the Statue of Liberty is included in the infobox, but want to exclude the Grand Central Terminal, even though it is a crucial part of the city's infrastructure. The Statue of Liberty is precisely the exact kind of popular place that you seem to oppose in your last messages. –Tobias (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't give me a ping notice again. I am watching this page.  I told you, we need to represent the city entire.
 * As for the statue of liberty, it represents social history of the city and 19th century rise to prominence of its port. Also, we have enough re infrastructure, poor idea to sacrifice scope for that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should it be a poor idea to use the main station of a city as symbol for its infrastructure? Additionally, the Grand Central Terminal does have cultural status alongside with a remarkable history too, as nearly every other building or structure in NYC, so that's not really a convincing argument. Infrastructure isn't just a little important, it's crucial for any city.
 * But let's try to reach a consensus, at least for the replacement of the image of the Unisphere. Do you support this idea? –Tobias (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are reading what I write, we have enough on infrastructure in almost every picture, and scope across the city matters much more anyway.
 * As for the Unisphere I guess you have not convinced someone else above it is a better image, (the current image does seem good given its clear in the space given and the closeups in that part: the triangle with the other closupes of the statue and the bridge) but obviously one image over the other of the same thing is orthogonal to my main objections to what you want to do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker by the way, we are talking about five boroughs and from what I can see, Staten Island isn't even included in the current infobox. –Tobias (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, we are not writing about Staten Island, we encyclopedically covering the whole city. And just 1/9th of the montage is the bridge to Staten Island a key to understanding geography, but if you have another borough relevant image feel free to suggest it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024
I'm going to add one information in the "Tech and biotech" part. I read the Global Innovation Hubs Index, and I want to mention the place of NYC in this rank. New York is a top-tier global technology hub. In 2023, it is the representative of innovation hub, ranked second in the world after San Francisco-San Jose. This is from the NATURE which published in November 22, 2023. You can check it on this website: https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-023-00420-1 Gihii (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The website you linked is an Advertisement Feature.  (talk | contribs) 08:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024
I want to add some information under the tech and biotech page. I have read an article from nature, which proved that NYC ranked 2nd in the Global Innovation Hubs Index. I think the new information is of good use. The text I want to add is: New York is a top-tier global technology hub. In 2023, it is the representative of innovation hub, ranked second in the world after San Francisco-San Jose Gihii (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Same reason as above request; the website is an advertisement feature.  (talk | contribs) 08:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Common Name
New York City is sometimes nicknamed as "The Big Apple". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Talk:Big Apple. Yes. Exclusive Editor  Notify Me! 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

this article seems highly biased - too much bragging and "most...in the world" claims.
The tone of this overbloated article comes off as quite biased, and even misleading. There is a distasteful, unprofessional tone in this article of "most of this", or the "best of that" that's never seems to quit. Forgive me, but it's as if the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live. It's almost a promotional piece than something more objective. There's too many desperate attempts at listing what NYC could be possibly number one for (based on weak article or journalistic pieces and not based on statistics or facts, an easy example is the 800 language claim). It's written in an insufferable and relentless way, shoving down your throat this irrational belief that this city is somehow superior to all others. The line has to be drawn at over-implying that New York is the 'best' city in the world with its endless "most...in the world" claims. It comes off as arrogant and pretentious. You don't see this in any other Wiki city article. It's perhaps the worst Wiki page on a city I have read thus far. Please cut the hyperbole and speculated claims from this article and streamline it to make it easier to read. About 35% of its content can be easily cut. Thanks. Whisperer1982 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Enough people have mentioned this that some of the mentions might warrant removal. Seasider53 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been brought up ad nauseum for years. The superlatives are reliably sourced statements, and New York is characterized in its very identity by its many, many superlatives. Note that "superlative" does not equate to "superior". Therefore, this article has withstood the grand test of time and has retained its strength by its inherent integrity. Wikipedia is neither about modesty nor about eliciting emotional responses, and the articles aren't meant to be taken personally. It simply tells it as it is. Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand very little of all that. Seasider53 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and reliable sources frequently talks about NYC's superlatives, i.e. "most ... in the world" claims. Just being the most something in the world doesn't necessarily mean that NYC is not your city. People are free to scout out similar RSes from news articles and add them to other cities. I really don't see how that threatens your life. Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And in fact, other city articles tout their own cities' superlatives extensively, whatever superlatives they may have. And as long as they are reliably sourced, it's valuable information to learn about those cities as well. Castncoot (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You ignored the previous discussions about this (see the recent archives; no, I’m not looking them up for you). Seasider53 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I won't hold my breath then. When a significant proportion of the population categorically disagrees with you on a broad premise, it's better to take a granular look at sentences rather than taking a bulldozer to the entire article. It has occurred to me however, Seasider53, echoing the sentiment expressed above by the previous editor here, how exactly does this article affect your life? Castncoot (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand many of your questions, this being another. Why would the article affect my life? Seasider53 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Whisperer's remark, without much to do with Seasider, that the article is trying to say, if you don't live in New York City, especially Manhattan, then you do not deserve to live Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no "grand test of time", Castncoot. See WP:CONTENTAGE. This article having gotten away with extremely questionable writing for some time does not magically make it immune to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:TONE correction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The issue is not just having superlatives, it's that in a lot of cases they are fluff and/or undue. For example, the article claims that the city has "a significant influence" on a long list of things including health care, education and sports - what does that actually mean, in practice? Why does the fact that Tom Wolfe said a nice thing warrant inclusion? And so on. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that what you've said and everything tagged is too much. I don't think the superlatives have any issues, though. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The arrogance of this article is reek of American extraordinarism and Western bias. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Too bad for you that 1. America is rather extraordinary
 * 2. shocker! the most famous city on the planet, being situated in the West, is bound to have an article on it with a western-centric outlook daruda (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1.
 * 2. Which is a problem that we should correct? Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. subjective whether a citation is needed
 * 2. No? is an article on ulaanbaatar not supposed to be asian/mongol centric??? daruda (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. NPOV extends to striving for a global viewpoint. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A global viewpoint is not just meaningless jargon, but an inherently contradicts NPOV. not only is it impossible to have a global viewpoint; if such a viewpoint is so important, why in the world is wikipedia so supportive of LGBT rights etc when most of the global south is quite opposed to that topic; but having a global viewpoint diminishes the importance of the locality of the city, which is obviously going to be a more important aspect for a city article. if you insist on a 'gLoBaL vIeWpOiNt' then I hope you know that would mean erasing or derisively referring to some treasured NYC values such as openness, acceptance/tolerance etc. these 'global values' mean nothing and are an unenforceable farce daruda (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It means that NYC is a hub of innovation in health care, has capital markets which finance a large part of the education sector (and tbh every single sector of the economy) and is a sports hub with the most teams of any city situated in it. it's not that hard yk daruda (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What is a "hub of innovation in health care"?? Doesn't every city finance these things? As a proud New Yorker, the problem is that these claims need to be much more specific. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * by providing copious amounts of capital, thus acting as an agglomeration for the worlds's smartest minds to accumulate in a place that has the means to finance the innovations and industry leading changes they pioneer.
 * and no, obviously not every city can finance such things? you think gary, indiana is going to any of that? the point is that certain cities attract certain things. london attracts finance bros from around the world for a reason - it's a hub of the financial sector surpassed/equaled only by NYC. NYC, being one of the richest cities, and by far the largest city in the richest country on the planet, is obviously going to serve as a lynchpin for industry leading changes.
 * although i do agree, there need to be more sources backing these things up lol daruda (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we just cite the figures for financing instead? Yes? Every single government finances its stuff, period.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * sigh
 * that last argument you made was one of the worst things i've ever heard lol. every single government finances 'its stuff'. wut??
 * the point is that the wealth present in the city due to wall street, capital markets, venture capital and just all sorts of money in general makes it a hub for innovation. the highly educated populace, incredible infrastructure etc all contribute to making NYC a place where medical innovation occurs because the money to facilitate it is freely available. what's so hard to understand?
 * yes sure, we could cite some figures....or just hyperlink the whole article for healthcare in new york which provides heavy detail and has good sources? daruda (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yes sure, we could cite some figures....or just hyperlink the whole article for healthcare in new york which provides heavy detail and has good sources? daruda (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It would be easier to discuss this if people would focus on specific examples - one thing at a time - and suggest how you want to change them (reword, attribute, remove entirely, etc.) The article has a lot of superlatives, but the ones in the lead, at least, are important because they're widely-recognized and well-covered and are generally central to the city's notability; for example Anchored by Wall Street in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan, New York City has been called both the world's premier financial and fintech center and the most economically powerful city in the world is a vital aspect of coverage discussing the city, so it would have to be covered in some form; it also reflects massive amounts of coverage and summarizes an entire top-level section of the article. Likewise, NYC's size and population are both uncontroversial statistical details and are vital aspects of the topic. There may be less-significant or less well-cited superlatives but you have to focus on them individually and say what you want to do about them or discussion is unlikely to go anywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is with locutions like "has been called ... the world's premier... and most ... powerful", etc. Anyone can subjectively call anywhere anything. NY has also been called a rat-infested hellhole, but that doesn't belong in the lead either. Does NY have the world's largest stock exchange by volume, or the largest number of banks, or the greatest amount of capital? Objective facts, cited to reliable sources, belong in the article, not subjective opinions, good or bad. Station1 (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone can, but not everyone does. The article and its sourcing supports the idea that New York has been called those things repeatedly by high-quality sources in a way that makes it central to its notability; we don't use sources that call it those things, we use secondary sources that describe how it is referred to and its overall reputation. Its reputation as implied by those sources is a fact, not a subjective opinion. Individual people may agree or disagree with that reputation and with those statements, but they are well-cited as central aspects of the subject's notability - we do have to cover reputation, image, and perception when they are so well-cited. --Aquillion (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "... but not everyone does" is the point. Everyone says NY is the largest city in the United States, everyone says NY has 5 boroughs, everyone says NY was founded by the Dutch in the 17th century, everyone says NY is home to the UN, because these are facts. Not everyone says NY is the capital of the world, because that's not a fact, and it's silly to say so, even if hiding behind "WP isn't saying NY is the capital of the world, we're just quoting someone". If NY is not the capital of the world but the claim appears in our article, intelligent readers will properly question the quality of the whole article. Station1 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * very poor logic. what even is established fact? how do you quantify 'most powerful', 'world's most premier' etc in any shape way or form for anything at all then? by looking at examples of numerous sources stating such, and NYC has MORE THAN enough sources positing it to be the capital of the world. the wikipedia article on caput mundi similarly features mentions of NYC. absolutely nobody who is intelligent is going to actually assume that nyc is the legal capital of the world. and yet, the fact that the premier international body is located in NYC just further supports the claim that it's the capital of the world. your argument rings hollow daruda (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If we don't know what established facts are, we shouldn't be writing an encyclopedia. I see only one source in our article that claims NY is capital of the world: a WSJ opinion piece. Some sources say London is capital of the world. They can't both be the capital, so it must be opinion. If we have to qualify something with "someone says" (especially without specifying who), it probably doesn't belong. If we can say something "is", then it's probably fact. Station1 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There were other sources that I've analyzed and actually got misquoted. Somebody has since removed the entire mention of being capital of the world. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still in the first sentence under Economy. It's just one example. Station1 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024
"a very good Harbour for all windes" to "a very good harbor for all winds" Jihanysta (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the original spelling of the quote. Remsense  诉  02:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Rfc: Which lead image is clearer?
Which lead image is clearer? Castncoot (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I guess the RfC can be closed now? daruda (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we close this now? Seasider53 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

!Vote

 * B. While picture ‘A’ is pretty good, it suffers from twilight darkness obscuring the outlines of the buildings, and the background including the outer boroughs appears relatively vague. On the other hand, because picture ‘B’ is so sharply lit, and also because there is more ambient light in picture ‘B’ from the sunset/early dusk, the outlines of the skyscrapers are more clear and crisp, their borders are unmistakable, and one can actually see all the way far back to the clearly lit Verrazzano Bridge in picture 'B', connecting Brooklyn and Staten Island, which are also in fact boroughs of New York City, like Manhattan. Also just as critically, picture ‘B’ displays numerous skyscrapers in Midtown Manhattan which lie north of the Empire State Building, versus the incomplete picture ‘A’, which is bumping right up close to the Empire State Building while looking southward and is therefore missing important Midtown Manhattan skyscrapers north of the Empire State Building, including the highly notable Bank of America Tower (with the blue spire, right foreground). Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A. The light emitting from almost every window in B impairs the view of the individual buildings. Not that I want to cause anyone to add New York City has the highest number of light bulbs of any city in the world ever to the article, in line with all of the other claims of the city's firsts. Seasider53 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * B shows the grandeur scale of the city better. Moxy 🍁 00:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lower Manhattan from Jersey City September 2020 HDR panorama (cropped2).jpg How about this one? I like it because it has a whole skyline in view. We can call this one C. I think it's just as crisp as B but has a more distinctive "New York City" look. HenryMP02 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A or C since the view emphasis in both images is on the skyline. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (fixed template at 22:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)) (fixed phrasing at 22:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC))
 * question about this image..... Are these the twin tower lights and are they still utilized today? Moxy 🍁 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, those Twin Tower lights are utilized at the somber memorial commemorations every September 11th. The picture 'C' is only of Lower Manhattan, though. Picture 'B' is more detailed than picture 'A', which is incomplete and in that sense is misleading to the reader. I believe in striving for completeness and accuracy, and Picture 'B' best fits that bill. Castncoot (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A. The lens distortion on the second photo (wherein closer buildings are warped and unusually large compared to farther objects) just seems unprofessional while the first photo has a very refined look. The WTC (and the rest of lower manhattan, and the Verrazano bridge) is also far more visible in the first photo and the ESB is the centerpiece as it should be, whereas in B the ESB is upstaged by the Bank of America tower and other lovely but less significant buildings. Photo C is a nice proposal but doesn't represent midtown. RyanAl6 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A per Ryan and Seasider. Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly no photography expert, so if it's true that picture 'B' represents a distorted image, then I would not want to use it either; I don't mind keeping picture 'A' then. This RfC can probably be closed now. Castncoot (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet you denigrated @Dadude sandstorm for (on your assumption) not being a photography expert and, thus, asked for an RfC. Do you feel an apology to them is needed? I do. Seasider53 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't think we need to escalate our tone that far. 2. It's a bold edit and a bold revert. It is known that Nkon21 is a photographer, and I see no reason to call deferring to him "denigration". Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That was the basis of the RfC, because another editor had the audacity to revert to Castcoot's vague "clearer" change of the longstanding image. You may have missed the ANI we had a few months ago. Things don't seem to be improving. Seasider53 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Castncoot (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A per Ryan.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A as per the reasons I've previously cited in the version history Daruda (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2024
 * A or C. B has too many lit windows and some distortion in the foreground. Senorangel (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A is better. B looks too cluttered. Some1 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A - I agree with the above, B is too cluttered, and the shapes of the individual buildings are too difficult to make out. With A, the shape of the skyline is much more recognisable Timceharris (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * B - B provides a wide view of the city, I also do not think the green light emitting from the tower is representative of either the Empire State Building or NYC, although I think B is a bit too wide, it is still better than A and more representative of NYC. O.maximov (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * C is also an option and is better than A. Yet B is best. O.maximov (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A is clearer than B. I'm giving this answer because that was the question. "Which would make a better lede image?" is not the same thing. B covers a larger number of NYC's iconic buildings. But an image honoring the five boroughs rather than just one would be even better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)