Talk:New York City/Archive 6

New York Authors
I wanted to check with others before making the change, but I don't think that David Foster Wallace should be listed among DeLillo, Sontag and others as an author who has spent a lot of time in NYC, or has written about NYC. Wallace, currently an Illini who spent some time in Boston, has written two novels to date, neither of which take place in NYC (other than for some small scenes here and there). Broom of the System, Wallace's first novel, takes place almost entirely in Ohio, while Infinite Jest Takes place mostly in Allston and Boston, with excursions to Arizona and Canada. Neither spend very much time in New York. Further, though I'm unfamiliar with Wallace's newest book of short stories, Oblivion, none of his previous short stories have taken place in NYC.

If I don't get any negative feedback on this comment, I'll go ahead and change it sometime next week.

Thanks,

-M

--I went ahead and changed it myself, and put Jonathan Safran Foer in his place. I was the one who wrote that brief list of authors, and I included Wallace because I was under the impression he has been living in New York for some time. --Jleon 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Crime
--I would like to move the section on "Crime" either back to a sub-section of "Demographics" or to a separate heading directly beneath the demographics. The section does not belong under "Current issues" as it clearly deals with a brief history of crime, and contains statistics (unlike the rest of the "Culture" section). Crime is considered to fall under the umbrella of demographics, as it is statistical information relating to the population of a city. --Jleon 18:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * --100% agree that "Crime" belongs under "Demographics" or its own heading. --Aude 21:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

City Flag

 * I noticed that the city flag page states that it "may have been contributed by a user or taken and/or modified from the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook. Many have also been color-modified based on data from the World Flag Database".  Both the city's flag and the seal are available from the City of New York website, although the copyright on the page states that it belongs to "The City of New York".  Can that  flag be used, seeing as how the City provides it?  If not, can a link be made to it?
 * NeoAmsterdam 05:46, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Trivia
"Approximately 2 out of 5 New York State residents live in New York City."

Is this fact interesting or unusual enough to warrant inclusion? -- Chuq 23:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan
"The city includes large populations of immigrants from over 180 countries who help make it one of the most cosmopolitan places on earth, after London" - Assuming that this is referring to ethnic diversity, is London still more diverse than NYC? Without substantiation, the reference to London should be dropped.

Category: CITY, STATE
At the risk of awakening the NYC debate again, following the pattern "Category: CITY, STATE" I created Category:New York City, New York. I suggest that as Categories are less directly used by people, perhaps the longer name is more acceptable. At present only Category:Images of New York City, New York exists there, supporting images throughout the area. Regional image categories could be linked to this category. (SEWilco 06:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * We already have Category:New York City for that. There's hardly a need to make a duplicate category.--Pharos 06:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've listed Category:New York City, New York on WP:CFD. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 11:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Too many photos, Poorly placed photos
This page has way too many photos, it's really cluttering up the page and is making it difficult to read.

Please be aware that not every image you upload of new york needs to go on this page. If you have a photo you want to upload, feel free to list it in commons:Category:New York, New York. (I do a lot of work with the nyc categories on Wikicommons.) Only the best photos should make it to this wikipedia article, and honestly, few of these are the best photos of nyc Wikimedia has to offer. --Quasipalm 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Did a few updates -- feedback is welcome of course. More can be done, but I've gotta get some sleep.  :-)  --Quasipalm 03:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

--I think you need to slow down here a bit. This is the first time I've ever seen you on this article and you're probably unfamiliar with the long history of discussion and give-and-take revolving around the photos. For starters, the intro photo needs to be restored as does the original map of the five boroughs. --Jleon 12:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem, I'll slow down. However, I can't see how anyone thinks that image 2 is more helpful than image 1.  Please comment about the merits of image 2.


 * Merits:
 * Color coded for easy identification
 * Shows the administrative disctricts and answers questions such as: "which borough is Rosevelt Island in?"
 * Language neutral which makes it great for other languages.
 * More detailed (look at the Bronx border in image two, it's too vauge)
 * Correct Borough Borders (See "Problems" under image 2)
 * Higher Resolution
 * Labels airports
 * Attractive
 * Makes note of Marble Hill, Manhattan, New York "controversy"
 * Problems:
 * Abstract / Cartoonish


 * Merits:
 * Labels boroughs and non-NYC areas, like NJ
 * Shows actual geography as seen from space
 * Problems:
 * Brooklyn, Queens border awfully inaccurate. Source:


 * Now, other than the reduction of some of the images in the sections with several photos (this was done to make the page readable at lower resolutions, something people should always check for), the only major change was the elimination of the intro photo. You note that these images "long history of discussion and give-and-take revolving around the photos" -- however this image is a late addition and has not been discussed on this page at all, as far as I can tell.  It was added March 18th by its author (User:Bartekr).  It's a fine photo, but I've seen a number of better photos for an introduction.  Rather than drone on here, I'll create a new section.
 * I see you're a vetran on this page, Jleon. My concern is that a lot of pages like NYC become media repositories for well-meaning people that upload their images and don't know where to put them.  I've seen it a million times on wikipedia, and I'm sure you have too.  I usually try and clean up the pages so 1) they a readable on smaller screens, 2) the article focuses on the text information and uses only illustrative photos, keeping wikipedia an Encyclopedia rather than a scrapbook, 3) Move other images to Wikipedia Commons, the real media repository of Wiki projects.  --Quasipalm 14:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

--Well Map #2 is part of a whole series of maps that are unified through various NYC related articles-namely the articles for the boroughs. It uses unobtrusive colors and easy to read labels. Personally, I feel Map #1 is a little cartoonish, but we could use it if there was consensus over it. As for the intro photo- while that particular shot is rather new, the agreement to use a photo of the Midtown skyline in the intro goes way back (you'll see all the discussion in the talk archives). I like the new photo you added of the ESB, but I don't like the idea of replacing the photo of the Statue of Liberty in the harbor with a close-up pic of the statue's face. --Jleon 15:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

--Sounds completely reasonable, thanks for your comments. --Quasipalm 15:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Intro Photo: I'll continue to scour the Library of Congress's archive of photos to look for a professional midtown photo that kicks ass. (I'll post it here and request comments before changing the image.)
 * I'll replace the statue of liberty image with the original.
 * Lastly, please note my additional comment above noting that the current map has misplaced borough boundaries (the booklyn / queens border is incorrect).
 * Since I spend a ton of time on the NYC categories in the Commons, I'll post new images here on the talk page if I think they're awesome, but will wait to actually edit the page. Sorry about any troubles.

--Well now that all the maps have been changed on the borough articles and the waterway map was added to this one- I guess it makes more sense to use Image #1 above. I personally don't have a strong preference so long as we use the same series for all the articles.--Jleon 16:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Quasipalm, I think you've done fine work on these maps and it certainly makes sense to use them as they're more accurate and detailed. As to the intro image, I've always thought the Statue of Liberty was more an icon of the city than some relatively anonymous skycrapers, but the complaints have been that those photos showed too much harbor and not enough city. Oh well- I'm keeping an eye out as well for that perfect image.--Pharos 06:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Culture and cultural institutions
It seems very Wikipedian that "Cultural institutions" are separate from culture. No doubt they would be, if there were any, in Yourtown USA. But New York's "cultural" institutions are integrated with its cultural life. New York's museums are full of New Yorkers except in August. --Wetman 20:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Portal
I've created a portal for NYC: Portal:New York City. Please check it out. My goal is to draw attention to the vast amount of information the wikiprojects have about the city -- and hopefully draw new contributors in as well. --Quasipalm 17:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Open House New York October 8 and 9
New York City editors may be interested in my note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New York City.--Pharos 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Phony "usage"
The following has been cobbled together by well-meaning Out-of-Towners:
 * Residents of the city often refer to the city itself as "the Five Boroughs," reserving the phrase "the City" for Manhattan, and referring to the other boroughs as "the Outer Boroughs", a term that some find pejorative or condescending. However, as more Manhattanites migrate outwards, fleeing sky-high rents, this usage is on the decline. Nonetheless, those less familiar with the city often (incorrectly) think Manhattan is synonymous with New York City. Through the boroughs, there are hundreds of neighborhoods (or nabes, in the local vernacular) in the city, many with a definable history and character all their own.

The contortions seem to have been engendered by trying to work the populist euphemism "Five Boroughs" into meaningful text: an ungrateful task. The long-standing flight of "Manhattanites"&mdash;significantly, a Corn Belt expression&mdash; dates to the creation of the IND subway and is more characteristic of the 70s and 80s. The rest is warble: New York is a city, a city with a center; the center is Manhattan. Nobody resents this in New York. They try to avoid its traffic and don't especially want to live in Greenwich Village. Too many viewings of Saturday Night Fever... --Wetman 05:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to say I rather disagree that "Manhattanites" is a Corn Belt expession; OK maybe "jet-setting Manhattanites" is, but what else would you call them? The name practically goes back to Walt Whitman  (well, it's not there exactly, but the sentiment really is).  Just don't tell me that the proud sobriquet of "Brooklynite" has any origin outside of the County of Kings :)--Pharos 03:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree -- the section should be re-worked or removed. Also, I think alluding to "manhattan envy" is silly since this is far, far from being a universal sentiment in the city. --Quasipalm 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor islands in The Bronx
If we're going to pick nits about not all of The Bronx being on the mainland (BTW, I live on one of those minor islands, perhaps we should also mention that little piece of northern Manhattan which is part of the mainland. --RoySmith 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What little piece is that? - Matthew238 06:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Staten Island
I've restored the statement on how each of the five boroughs could be major city in its own right. Staten Island has a population greater than Pittsburgh, and it has population density of more than 4,300 people per square mile, which is actually greater than many major American cities. --Jleon 13:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nassau & Suffolk counties have even greater populations -- each three times that of Staten Island. Nobody I know of claims either could be "major cities". The Staten Island article emphasizes its suburban nature - mentioning nothing about urbanization or industry there. What percentage of the housing units are detached or single family homes? It seems its only claim to being a "major city" is population density -- JimWae 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Staten Island may seem suburban in character when compared to the other boroughs, but it's extremely urban when compared to areas within other large U.S. cities. I would say a majority of the housing units are at least semi-attached, which is something that cannot be said for almost anywhere else in the country; and if you were to not consider Fresh Kills landfill, the population density would probably be close to Chicago's. Also, lets not forget that the borough actually almost became its own city at one point, while such a thing would be inconceivable for Nassau and Suffolk counties. --Jleon 12:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Becoming a city is mostly a matter of filling out the forms & putting a city gov't in place. The article says "major city". As we have seen in the USA article, many people does not = major city. From what I've seen of Staten Island, it is mostly residential with single detached or garden apartments. Perhaps you know more about it. What industry is there? Where is the city-center? Perhaps the Staten Island article just needs more work - I see nothing there indicating SI is in any way urbanized - no less, nearly a major city.--JimWae 23:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems this debate is all about what makes a major city a major city -- is it just population or is it more (town center, etc.). Perhaps we could find a compromise by reducing the subjective language and just relying on facts instead; let the reader decide if SI is "major" not.  Just a thought. --Quasipalm 14:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well there's a big difference between a "major city" and a "global city." A major city only needs a large number of people, while a global one needs much more. I'm really not partial to SI myself, but I just don't see why anyone would find anything contentious about the statement to begin with. --Jleon 18:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jleon here. If Staten Island had seceded in the early 1990s, there is no question that it would be belong on a list of the largest American cities.--Pharos 03:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * nobody is disputing it would be 44th in the USA, what is being discussed is whether or not the article should state it "would be" a major city. --JimWae 00:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

First it would have to decide if it would incorporate as one city or as a town with several villages. On a list of most populous US cities, it would be about 40th - just ahead of Kansas City. Which part is urbanized? The SI article mentions nothing about any industry --JimWae 04:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The plan was specifically to form a municipality called the City of Staten Island. They even had a flag, though it was just going to be the current borough flag with "City of Staten Island" written on it.  I'm not sure where you got the 40th ranking, by the way- that must be by metro area as Staten Island would rank much higher by the city limits standard.  As for business activity, yes there is some; there always is to provide the needs of a large population.  If you're looking for heavy industry or something, there is a shipping terminal.--Pharos 05:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

-Jimwae, why did you revert my restoring of this statment? You are the only one who objects to this, and I don't understand why you insist on being so stubborn. Again, SI has a greater population than Pittsburg, and Pittsburg would certainly qualify as a major city. I don't want to get into a revert war over this (especially not with someone who usually makes very good edits), so I'm asking you to restore it now. --Jleon 16:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a major city means more than having lots of people. Staten Island has roughly the same number of people as Mesa, Arizona. The Staten island article emphasizes the rural and residential nature of the island, barely touches on industry, and there's nothing about city amenities or attractions. If each borough were a separate city Brooklyn would rank 3rd, Queens 4th, Manhattan 6th, Bronx 9th, and Staten Island 44th in the USA. To say outright that Staten Island could qualify as a MAJOR city (even within the USA) one needs some criteria besides the # of people. We have seen in the United States article how uninformative a list of most populous cities can be. We could state the facts (above) and let the reader determine if Staten Island would be a major city, but then it becomes obvious that SI is "different" from the others - probably even moreso if we compared densities, and stylistically a table of populations would be better JimWae 00:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

--The population density on SI is greater than five of the ten largest cities in the U.S., and public transportation usage is much higher in SI than in most American cities. If that's not what you call urbanized than I'm not sure what would be. There are museums, theaters, industry, and plenty of office space throughout the borough, and I would argue that it has far more cultural importance than many major cities (San Antonio, Jacksonville, Tucson, etc.). No one is saying SI would be a "global city", just a major American city. --Jleon 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

By public transportation, would you be mostly referring to the ferry to Manhattan? There is little in the Staten Island article to indicate any urbanization other than cars on the "new" bridge. I have never suggested you were saying it was a global city. It has as many people as Mesa. SI is definitely less-urbanized than the rest of NYC and than a great many cities. Let the reader decide what is major. --JimWae 01:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

--Sigh...I was not talking about the ferry at all (although that counts too), I was referring to the SI Railway and the dozens of bus lines in the borough. It makes no difference how it compares to other boroughs, and I'm not sure why you insist on comparing it to Mesa which is really more of an anomaly than anything else. I'v already demonstrated that it is highly urbanized by American standards, and has a surprising amount of cultural output for 400k people. It's disappointing that you won't relent on this. --Jleon 15:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

East River / Pelham Bay
I changed tag #2 in the New York City waterways image back to East River instead of Pelham Bay. A lot of people think of the East River as just that part between Manhattan the Queens, but it also includes the section between Queens and The Bronx, all the way to Throggs Neck. --RoySmith 13:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that -- I hadn't noticed it had been changed. I originally created this map, and still have the original file in photoshop and in vector format as well.  Everyone, feel free to suggest changes about the placement of numbers, or anything else that might make this map more clear.  (I originaly placed the 2 for East River further up to highlight the fact that it goes further north than most realize, but also because it didn't look right hovering right over Rosevelt Island.)  I'm planning on making a lot more maps for the city articles -- including maps that highlight the neighborhoods of NY.  Here's a larger image for reference:


 * [[Image:Waterways New York City Map Julius Schorzman.png|400px|thumb|left| New York City waterways: 1. [[Hudson River]], 2. East River, 3. Long Island Sound, 4. Newark Bay, 5. Upper New York Bay, 6. Lower New York Bay, 7. Jamaica Bay, 8. Atlantic Ocean]]


 * --Quasipalm 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Can another #2 tag be added to the section of the East River between Long Island and Manhattan. Having the tag located in the section of the river not commonly recognized as the East River will cause people to assume that there is an error.


 * --EGregory 15:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding NYC-related articles
Articles on neighborhoods should include information on the school zoning of the neighborhoods. The NYCDOE has a school zone search tool. WhisperToMe 02:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Professional sports
I've relocated that oversized (but still nicely done) table of sports teams onto the List of New York City sports teams. There's really no reason to dedicate so much space on this article for that. --Jleon 17:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Intellectual, financial, and cultural capital of the world ??
Maybe New Yorkers and Americans generally regard New York as "the intellectual, financial, and cultural capital of the world", but I think many Londoners, Parisians and others would disagree, particularly about the intellectual and cultural assertions. This seems somewhat POV to me. JackofOz 03:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. These are not objective statements. Maybe the financial one can be substantiated but probably not the others.

External link - NYC sheriff's office
Last week, I was reverted by Goeagles4321 when removing this added external link that was added by an anon. editor. (who I suspect is same as Goeagles4321). While this site provides a little background about the history of the NYC sheriff's office, it provides little else &mdash; I think not enough to justify the external link in this article, is amateurish in its design, and not notable (just one backward link to this site). --Aude 02:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jackson Heights 2.jpg
One image in this article (Image:Jackson Heights 2.jpg) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on google images for the original but can't source it. Does anyone here know where its from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I took that photo myself. Sorry, I haven't gotten around to tagging it properly. --Jleon 19:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That was my guess :) If you're happy with this text then you just need to put  on the image page Agnte 20:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Source:

The New York Historical Society http://www.slaveryinnewyork.org/gallery_2.htm

Subject:

Irrefutable evidence of the centrality of enslaved lives and deaths at the heart of colonial New York.

New Amsterdam : A Slave-Built Colonial Outpost

Its enslaved Africans built whatever New Amsterdam needed. A wall and a fort to protect against native peoples and rival English colonies. A dock to receive cargoes from the Hudson Valley and from overseas. Roads into the interior of bountiful Manhattan Island. Eventually the Africans won "half-freedom." They still had to pay an annual tax and could be called back to work for the Dutch West India Company. But they had their own homes and the chance to create one of the first free black communities in North America.

Is this fact interesting or unusual enough to warrant inclusion?


 * Yes, but not in this article. If you follow the link in the History section of this article you will get (several levels down) to New York Slave Insurrection of 1741.  Some mention of slavery probably belongs higher up than this, but at least it's not completely missing.  -- Mwanner | Talk 13:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Name
Perhaps this article should be totally moved to New York (city)? It does appear to be needed. Isn't that more of a better article title? I.e., does the "City" in "New York City" correct? --Kilo-Lima 20:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "New York City" is a correct form, answering a common search entry by a Wikipedia user. --Wetman 06:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The intro
--You'll see I've done a bit towards simplifying the intro, as it had gotten so cluttered as to be virtually unreadable (the first paragraph alone stated the prevelance of financial instituitions four separate times in a row). Here's how I imagine the proper intro to this article, with four concise paragraphs covering: 1) What NYC is and its importance as a "global city" and cultural center, 2) The basic population and geographic profile for the city, 3) A mention about its diversity and allure to other Americans, and 4) The basics of its economic importance. The nicknames are already mentioned under culture, and really most of those "nicknames" are more metaphorical than really being nicknames that people use on an everyday basis. Plus, the "Big Apple" is already mentioned in paragraph 3. --Jleon 02:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for paring down the intro into something more concise and readable. Looks good. --Aude 03:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The reference to population could be clarified. Currently it says it is "over 8.1 million". It would be more precise to say what it actually is. Is it 8.2 million? 8.3 million? Nine million? If it's actually 8.1 million, why not say so, clearly? If it's actually 8.2 million, how about saying that instead? Of course, in an article which may not be kept up to date, it would be better to say something like "the population in 2003 was 8.1 million". This is a type of statement which will always be true. To say "it is 8.1 million" will soon be out of date and may not be corrected if no-one is keeping track of this detail. Adrian Robson 13:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, and have changed it to "New York City has a population of 8 million" with a footnote that provides the source - 2000 census. --Aude 16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually prefer the "over 8" or "at least 8" because the census always undercounts (sometimes by large margins) in cities with a large population of illegal immigrants. Not a huge deal though, it is nice to keep the intro simple.  --Quasipalm 19:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right about undercounting, though I think we should use verifiable sources. Furthermore, go on American Fact Finder, enter "New York City", and you'll get a summary of 2000 Census data.  There's another tab "2004", which is based on the American Community Survey, that provides population estimate of 7,918,562.  Again, undercounting is probably an issue.  But maybe we should use that number instead of the 2000 census figure? --Aude 23:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

-Well the American Community Survey is different from official census estimates, which for 2004 was 8,168,388. I'd like to at least have it say over 8 million. Perhaps after 2005, we can update it to 8.2 million. --Jleon 14:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your changes sound okay to me. The footnote can provide specific numbers, sources, and any clarification needed. --Aude 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't like the use of the word "over". It sounds like advertising copy. Of course, it's almost never going to be literally true that a city has a population of exactly eight million. So in a literal sense it's more accurate to say "over eight million". But people generally understand about rounding of numbers and a number rounded to the nearest 100,000 is going to be good enough for most readers.


 * It may not be immediately obvious why a word like "over", with its POV undertones, has its place in advertising copy but not in an objectively written encyclopedia. But consider that we could instead say "under 8.1 million" and that would be just as accurate as "over eight million". I doubt that anyone would want to say "under 8.1 million" even though it's just as valid as "over eight million". So I'd vote for sticking to a straightforward rounding to the nearest 100,000, with the footnote for anyone who's interested in the detail. Adrian Robson 15:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

--But 8 million is not rounding to the nearest 100k. If thats what you want to do, then it should read 8.2 million, and we can drop the "over". --Jleon 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was basing my examples on the figure that's in the article at the moment. 8.2 million is fine, as long as it's sourced. I wasn't really focussing on the actual different figures - I'm sure they're all justifiable figures based on the different dates or different methodologies. Adrian Robson 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

-Also related to the intro. Was anyone else experiencing some cut-off of the text in the first paragraph behind the pic? Maybe someone knows the solution to this? --Jleon 19:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was seeing the same problem and I thought it must be a problem with my browser. But it looks as though you've fixed it now, which is great! Adrian Robson 19:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

--I just discovered that the 2004 population listed on the sidebar is incorrect. The |official estimate is actually 8,104,079. I'll fix it and the end-note accordingly. --Jleon 19:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote on general city name convention!
The basis for naming this page New York, New York and all other city articles according to a contrived City, State convention is a claim that there is an accepted alleged convention for this (for which the name of this very page is a refutation). To settle this issue there is a vote on whether the City, State and Neighborhood, City, State conventions should apply even in cases where there is no ambiguity issue, such as in New York City. You would be voting essentially on whether the name of this page and all other unambiguous city and neighborhood should be something like New York, New York] and [[Hollywood, Los Angeles, California according to "convention", or be the common name of the place, like New York City and Hollywood (but only when the name is unambiguous). Vote here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 07:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

hat note
The dab link currently reads:
 * This is an article about New York City; see also NYC, New York, New York and New York.

Is there any interest in working on a more generaly disambiguation scheme, rather than having things so spread out? Tedernst | talk 19:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I edited it slightly by un-piping and de-linking one because the appropriate title doesn't re-direct here. Georgia guy 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro pic
--Does anyone object to my switching the placement of the Intro and Tourism pics? That Midtown photo has been in the intro for ages, and I thought it might be refreshing to have a change- especially now with all the exposure from King Kong, maybe it wouldn't hurt to have the ESB on top. --Jleon 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem with switching the photos. The ESB photo looks very good.  Anyway, the ESB is emblematic of New York City, and instantly recognizable. --Aude 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello, I think this was a positive change but neither of those photos or their descriptions are very informative about New York. Please see this new discussion and comment there. Hopefully more than two people check this page! Omnibus 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue
I just noticed that the following text from this NYC article:


 * The shape of the land has been altered substantially by human intervention, with considerable land reclamation along the waterfronts since Dutch times, most dramatically in Lower Manhattan, and continuing in modern developments like Battery Park City. Much of the natural variations in topography have been evened out, particularly in Manhattan (one possible meaning for Manhattan is "island of hills"; in fact, the island was quite hilly before European settlement). A number of smaller islands have been artificially enlarged, and the map of islands in Jamaica Bay has been completely transformed.

is rather similar to the text at http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/real-estate/new-york/new-york-city/ which says


 * The shape of New York City's real estate has been altered substantially by human intervention, with considerable land reclamation along the waterfronts since Dutch times, most dramatically in Lower Manhattan, and continuing in modern developments like Battery Park City. Much of the natural variations in topography have been evened out, particularly in Manhattan. A number of smaller islands have been artificially enlarged, and the islands in Jamaica Bay has been completely transformed.

The pieces of text are clearly related, but I can't say which way it went. Food for thought. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's definitely a copyright issue. I personally wrote that particular paragraph here, and they've taken it and the rest of their selective summary without any attribution.  It seems they've taken uncredited from Wikipedia geography articles for many other pages on that site as well.  Someone's going to be getting a strongly worded e-mail!--Pharos 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was poking around at and can't find any of the text there in September 2004.  I can't figure out when they added it but it definitely looks like their taking text from Wikipedia without giving credit.  They also say "If Washington, D.C. were considered a state, it would rank last in area behind Rhode Island, 50th in population ahead of Wyoming, and 36th in Gross State Product, ahead of 15 states." (Washington, D.C.), and I'm sure we can find many more examples.  And at the bottom of the page, it says "Copyright© 2001-2005 Location Inc Group".  They need to add a disclaimer and give credit. Thanks bringing attention this site.  --Aude 19:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have posted this site at Mirrors_and_forks/Mno. I'm not entirely sure of the procedures for dealing with this, but think the first step is an e-mail, as Pharos says.   --Aude 22:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've already sent them an e-mail.--Pharos 23:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2005 NYC transit strike
I have removed the following sentence from Commuter culture:
 * "Moreover, a strike by unions representing the city's transit workers in December 2005 has threatened to freeze the entire city and could cost up hundreds of millions of dollars in damages a day."

This was just tagged onto the end of the paragraph. If we're going to mention the strike (not sure we need to yet; it's mentioned in New York City Subway), it needs to be worked in better to the article so that the paragraph isn't choppy. Or maybe it should be mentioned in history (maybe not yet, though).--Aude 16:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

--I agree, if it goes on for a week or so it might be worth a small mention under History. --Jleon 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How many subway tunnels under the East River?
East River say 10. I count 12: Is East River wrong or am I missing something? --Quasipalm 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * F
 * 1) NRW
 * EV
 * 7
 * L
 * 1) JMZ
 * F
 * 1) BDNQ
 * AC
 * 23
 * MR
 * 45


 * Yes, JMZ and BDNQ are bridges, not tunnelz. -- Cecropia 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Durr, thanks. :)  --Quasipalm 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Btw, this was for Bridges and tunnels in New York City which I created yesterday. --Quasipalm 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

--Nice job! I added a link to it under "Transportation." --Jleon 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the NYCTA uses seperate tunnel tubes for each track, the actual number of East River Tunnels is 22. Everyonbe forgets that the 63rd Street Tunnel (F Line) is actual four tubes, two over two. The upper level tubes are for the F Train, while the lower level tubes are for the LIRR whenever it gets around to building the connection to Grand Central Terminal.

CORNELIUSSEON 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

September 11
"when nearly 3,000 people were killed by an al-Qaeda terrorist strike on the World Trade Center, including New Yorkers employed in the buildings......

It wasn't only New Yorkers who were killed on that day.. what about making it "including people employed"

???Panthro 03:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a very good suggestion. Be bold and go ahead and change it.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Queens
Queens (Queens County, pop. 2,225,486) is the most diverse county in the U.S., with more immigrants than anywhere else. Than anywhere else? And diversity is not only measured by immigrant populations. This sentence needs to be fixed. --Katwmn6 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that you say that, the sentence jumps out at me too. Though, I'm not sure what I'd say instead.  What would you suggest it say?  I don't mind if you go ahead and change it to say something better.  Be bold. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Crime
I find the crime section to be very biased. "Since 1991, New York City has seen a continuous seventeen-year trend of decreasing crime and is now the safest large city in the United States. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now thriving with new businesses and housing, and many residents feel safe to walk the streets late at night." -these are very subjective, "non-academic" statements. If they are to remain, I suggest the following changes be made: (1) "is now the safest large city in the US" needs to be followed up with something along the lines of "according to crime per capita statistics". Also, "large city" should be defined (ie w/in the top 10 most populous US metropolitan areas, or above a certain population?) (2) Specific neighborhoods should be referenced instead if the commment about "once dangerous places" is to remain. (3) There needs to be opinion polls cited about New Yorkers' perceptions of safety. "Many residents feel safe ..." is a completely subjective statement unless backed by historical poll tracking and/or comparisons to residents' quantifiable perspectives in other US cities.

The crime comparison statistics also do not reference Chicago (3rd largest US city and most frequently invoked metropolitan area when comparing NYC to others).

Also, what about a historical analysis of why crime has dropped in recent years? --Katwmn6 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As is done with the population figure, the crime statistics could be referenced with a footnote that explains these things (per capita statistics, what we mean by "large city"). With 2005 just ended, it's easy to get homicide totals for cities out of newspaper reports and compute those against population figures.  Though, safety ought to be measured by more than homicides, it's by far the simplest measure to compute.  These numbers could be incorporated into United States cities by crime rate (which would include Chicago).  I think an example of a "once dangerous" place would be helpful, with reference to historic crime statistics which are available on the NYPD website.  And, I'm not aware of any particular poll that gauges perception of safety.  As for a historical analysis of why crime has dropped, it's quite complicated with many factors, that I think go beyond the scope of this article.  I'll do what I can to improve the crime section of the article, but we would more than welcome your help.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

People
This article needs a specific "people" section under demographics. I think there could be more info here...


 * Be bold and go ahead and add what you think needs to be there. Though, feel free to make suggestions here and get feedback. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

9/11
"Nationally, Americans felt increased solidarity with New Yorkers. Today, there is a palpable sense of optimism in New York, fear of terrorism has lessened dramatically, and a massive confluence of transportation infrastructure projects promises to greatly expand the city's economic potential. Drastic reductions in crime have changed "the ungovernable city" of the past into a remarkably civilized place, and recent polls show that a vast majority of New Yorkers think the city "is moving in the right direction." Citations???  These are all subjective opinions until referenced.--Katwmn6 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about this being subjective. Maybe it should just be deleted.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Skyline photos
While they are nice photos, I don't think the article needs all three of these skyline/panoramic photos. There are also more to choose from on Commons.
 * Image:New-York-Jan2005.jpg
 * Image:Skyline-New-York-City.jpg
 * Image:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg

What do you think? Should we keep all three? If not, which one(s) should we include in the article?

And where? in the "Tourism" section, or "Skyline" section? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

-I'm partial to the first two, as they each show much more detail. Maybe we could show the new one on some other articles instead (Manhattan, Rock Center, etc.). --Jleon 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Safest city
While being the "safest city" is a very important and distinguishing fact, the particular sentence says:
 * "The city is also distinguished for being the safest large city[2] in America, despite its size and cultural diversity."

At this point of the intro, we've yet to mention anything about it's size and cultural diversity. It makes sense to talk about those first. And I think the city being the "center of international finance, politics, entertainment, and culture" is more distinguishing than the crime rate. I prefer the sentence in with the paragraph that mentions immigration and diversity. It's a good lead for saying despite the diversity (and size; already mentioned), NYC is the safest large city ... -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

--That sums up my rationale for the move perfectly. In terms of the recent removal of "despite its cultural diversity," I had originally included that phrasing because in a very general sense homogeneous socities are usually safer than highly heterogeneous ones- making NYC's low crime rate all the more remarkable. I can understand though why people would have a problem with linking the two, since it could be misconstrued by some. Then again, the same correlations could be disputed in terms of citing the "size" and "density" of the city as making a low crime rate noteworthy. --Jleon 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Top photo, photo descriptions, placement, etc.
I made edits 34049905 and 34051095 to the page tonight and they were reverted with instructions to discuss on the Talk page before being bold (perhaps too bold?) and editing the article as I did. I feel pretty strongly that the changes are positive both aesthetically and informatively and so I'd like to know what others think. What do people here think of these changes? Please comment one way or the other so we can all get a feel for what the consensus may be among editors of this page.

The first edit was a big one and important IMO, making the image placements more logical and their descriptions more informative. The City is a lot more than the Chrysler and Empire State buildings, though they deserve a large placement and description in Tourism. The page needed a superlative night image IMO and this German one from Commons is fantastic as an opening image. I feel this edit is pretty essential to getting closer to featured article status. (The second edit consisted of, in lieu of redirecting to the page, linking to section explaining the nickname.)

The basic idea is that the Empire State and Chrysler buildings are important tourist items to the article, but more informative about New York City is its reputation as a city that is constantly active. The Commons photo (used on German Wikipedia's featured article on New York City) that I inserted demonstrates this nicely. The old (current) top image and its description does little to describe New York City itself.

Omnibus 01:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I think the top image should be one that is iconic, emblematic of NYC (like what you did with Statue of Liberty).  What's in the top image should immediately recognizable with just a glance by people who aren't that familiar with NYC, and I think the Empire State Building photo did just that.  Furthermore, I like the aesthetics and colors of the ESB photo, while Image:Manhattan night march USa.jpg isn't as colorful; it just looks like a bunch of buildings, at the smaller thumbnail size, that doesn't look hugely different than what one sees in Image:Torontoatnight.jpg. Elsewhere in the article, I think it's good to emphasize the "other" aspects of NYC than the touristy. Just my two cents here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right... I didn't think about the fact that the new pic wouldn't really identify NYC too strongly versus other cities at that size. The new pic definitely needs to be in the article though, so I'll see what I can do. I'm going to go ahead and be bold again (but without swapping the intro image) so feel free to reel me in again if I overstep... thanks for helping make to make this article great! I think we can do better than what it is if we keep working at it. Omnibus 02:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the caption you used "New York City is known for being active 24 hours a day, earning the nickname "The City That Never Sleeps".". I think maybe it would work better with a ground-level photo showing people out in the streets at night.  Unfortunately, despite the many photos of NYC on Commons, few fit that.  The closest I see it the Times Square photo, already in the article.  Maybe the picture you suggest would be suitable. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another great point... I'll look through the other language Wikipedias and see what they have that isn't on Commons as a starting point. I like your idea of it better, too. Omnibus 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find one so far, but found a more active night shot for now. Omnibus 02:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What about this one? --Dschwen 17:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--Some articles have a small "Gallery" at the bottom where unused pics can be displayed without overwhelming the text, perhaps we could set that up here? The only photo I really do not like is the one of the fighter jets- air shows are not a common part of life in NY at all, and I think it's a pretty weird choice to have under the "Government" section. --Jleon 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about the fighter jet pict. It's odd, and it's placement in the government section is even odder.  Rather than a gallery, I suggest a link to commons:Category:New York, New York.  There is a template for that: , which is already in the article.  Also, keep in mind all the subtopic articles.  Yesterday, I poked around commons and found a few picts. to add to Bridges and tunnels in New York City.  Culture_of_New_York_City is rather bare and could use some photos, as I presume is the case for other subtopic articles. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect the appearence of the fighter jet pic is related tio its recent nomination on WP:FPC. Someone wanted to boost its What links here section. --Dschwen 14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Add me to the list of people for the removal of the fighter jet from this article. It features the jets more than the city. Omnibus 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I also am not a big fan of the current "title" photo, but I'm not sure the photo change was any better. By far, my fav pic of the city right now on the commons is this photo: I wonder if we cropped this photo if it would be a better title pic? It is both very recognizable because of the Empire State Building, but it's also not just an image of the ESB. Secondly, I'm fine with the fighter jets photo, but if you would like to propose a different pic here, feel free. Perhaps something like City Hall. Here is the only picture of city hall I see on the commons, and it's far too shadowy to use: Image:Nyc city hall.jpg --Quasipalm 14:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--OK, here's the result of my cropping the new pic: --Jleon 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * When viewed at the larger size, Image:Top of Rock Cropped.jpg is certainly a great image. But, at the thumbnail size, I still prefer the current photo.  The photo is important in that it's "above the fold".  It's what I see before scrolling down.  The colors of the image really draw the eye and tells a visitor that this is the New York City article (moreso than the article heading).  It's portrait layout (vs. landscape for the other) also I think makes the ESB photo fit better in this spot, above the infobox. Though, what I don't like about the ESB photo is it's copyright tag, however.  It's supposedly free-use, no restrictions so I think it's okay to use here.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-With Omnibus's addition, we now have two views of Lower Manhattan from the Harbor. They're both very nice, but I think we should only have one of these. I also disagree with the removal of the daytime Midtown pic, it's the most detailed image of what the area really looks like. --Jleon 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--Maybe instead of one portrait photo in the intro, we could have two landscape ones. It seems to work pretty well for London's article. --Jleon 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But they don't use an infobox. We could try it though. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-Well I gave it a try. It sort of works and sort of doesn't in my opinion. --Jleon 16:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * May I propose a link to the full panorama in the caption, just like here in the London article? Like this:  Full panoramic photo 
 * Ok, I added it. At first I was not too thrilled by the crop, but this way I like it very much. Check out the image page of the fullsize, where I just added a description of most of the prominent features with wikilinks. --Dschwen 19:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-Sounds good, thanks. I'm still not sure if everyone wants to keep it as-is or to restore the full version back into the article. I could really go either way on it. --Jleon 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Government pict.
For the government section, either a pict. of city hall or the mayor. I agree, this one city hall pict. is too shadowy and doesn't belong in the article. I uploaded another, Image:Nyc city hall night.jpg, but think this is also less than ideal. The background is too da. rk, and a picture at dusk or daytime (no shadow) would be better. Alternatively, (also not ideal), I found a pict. of the mayor on his visit to the oval office. . This picture could be cropped to show just the mayor. Or, just don't put a picture in the government section. The article already has plenty of photos. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another mayor pict., used on his article, Image:MichaelBloomberg.jpg. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another possibility for the government section is Image:NYPD-Motorcycles.jpg or something else on that theme. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-I think a nice shot of the Municipal Bldg would be perfect. Maybe I'll take one the next time I'm down there. --Jleon 16:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

-I switched it to the Bloomberg pic until we can get something better. I thought that nighttime pic of City Hall made it look like Disney's haunted mansion. --Jleon 14:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for Transportation in NYC as US Collaboration of the Week
The Transportation in New York City article is nominated as the United States Collaboration of the Week and deserves recognition for all the work that has been done to get this article up to snuff, and maybe ultimately to Featured article status. It's got potential: a compelling topic; thorough coverage of the material; better crafted sections linking to main articles; interesting pictures. Now all it needs is votes! As of now, West Viriginia has 12 votes, Rhode Island has 11 and TransNYC has just 3!?!? Rhode Island? West Virginia? Fuggedaboutit! Show your support and vote! C'mon, this is New York we're talking about. Once these other articles have been honored we need to have the votes for future recognition. Alansohn 13:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
There have been significant edits today, that in my opinion, make the article sound more like an advertisement brochure for visitors and conventions. I have started going through the "Arts & Culture" section to tone it down. Other sections may also need to be toned down. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * More major edits last night, generally to summarize some of the sections, which seems reasonable to me. Though with all the recent edits, I think the article now needs review, to make sure it doesn't read like an advertisement.  For instance, I'm not sure we need to include the statement "New York City has ranked number one for six consecutive years as the U.S. city people would most like to live in or near.".  Also, the city hall pict. was put back in.  I swapped it for a new city hall pict., though I also like the mayor pict. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 14:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

--Yeah, the amount of changes in the past 48 hours is dizzying, but I think it was generally good to have many of those sections trimmed down. That poll does sound a bit weird to me, since "in or near" NYC includes a good proportion of the current U.S. population it would only stand to reason to come out on top. Overall though, I think the article is looking much better now than from just a few months ago. --Jleon 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

9/11 as the only subsection of the history section?
As important and as historical as the 9/11 attacks were, the table of contents and the article looks a bit off with the attacks being the only subsection of the history section here. We're talking about a city with a 400-year-plus history. Of course there are other linked articles that deal with specific periods in NYC's history and the bulk of the information should continue to be in them. I'm just unsure that the only subsection here should be the 9/11 attacks. That's a relatively new change to the article, I think, and I believe that section can be incorporated into the main history section without making it a separate subsection in this article. Thoughts? Moncrief 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it doesn't need to be a seperate subsection, mainly because it's only a paragraph. Instead, it should just be the last paragraph of the history section. -Quasipalm 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Be bold and change it?  Moncrief 01:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you, and made the change. I tried to make the text flow better between the previous pgph and this one, though think the wording can be further improved.  -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. By the way, did "thick, acrid smoke" really flow out of Ground Zero for "months" as the article says?  I know there was a smell for a long time, but thick smoke for "months" (i.e., into early 2002?)  That seems a bit overstated.  No?  Moncrief 02:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I worked in the Harborside building in Jersey City directly across from Ground Zero throughout that whole period. There were visible plumes of smoke into 2002 (which were only visible from the Jersey side as time went on, and not always "thick"). I recall reading somewhere that the fires burning under the debris were extremely hot and continued to smolder for a long, long time after the Ground Zero site was contained. Overstated? Not really. Wv235 05:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, just checking. I think as it's written it might be slightly overstated, still, but I'll certainly defer on this one.  Moncrief 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Russian an NYC GDPs
There was a false statement that NYC produces nearly the same GDP as Russia. According to the World Bank GDP of Russia is 1,450 billion (PPP), and of NYC is 500 billion only. I've changed Russia to Turkey, which produces 530 billion in GDP.

--Revelator 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Revised Demographics Section
I decided to be bold and do an extensive rework of the demographics section, which I felt was in need of simplification and summary. I spent a long time making the new census table, which I think offers more useful information at a quick glance than the old population chart. The goal of changes to the text was to tame the plethora of statistics into a more intelligible narrative. I hope everyone finds the changes to be positive. If not, I preserved the section exactly as it was by moving it wholesale (including the population chart) to the main demographics article. 206.15.138.99 06:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Graph of borough historical population
I'd like to make a language neutral image like this for wikipedia: Anyone know where I can grab the data online? -Quasipalm 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Census data (population and many other variables) up to 1960 at the county(borough)-level are available at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/. Population counts for 1960-1990 at the county-level are available at http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/ny190090.txt, and 2000 census data is readily available at the U.S. Census website. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- done. I added a few charts to Demographics of New York City.  If anyone knows of other good articles, or other languages, here they are:



Plus just 1790-1890 and just 1900-2000. --Quasipalm 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The graphs look excellent. Thanks for creating them. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 18:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate format for an image like this would be SVG. --Dschwen 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The graphs appear to be created with Microsoft Excel, which I highly doubt provides SVG exporting. I would have copy and pasted the chart into Adobe Illustrator (not free software), converted all the text to outlines (svg has problems w/ displaying fonts), and export as SVG.  Would it be possible to copy and paste the chart into GIMP, convert the text to outlines, and export as SVG?  I know GIMP is an open-source photo/raster software package, so I'm really not sure if it supports vector (svg)?  Or is there another recommended free software package for doing this?  Graphics_tutorials provides some basic information, but I'm not that familiar with the free software options for vector graphics and which ones are best for this purpose.  -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Using non-free software does not taint the graphics. GIMP would be unsuited, try Sodipodi or Inkscape, allthough SVG Factory might be the right tool here. In any case, the graphs are really nice, it would be a waste to make them only available in a bitmap format. --Dschwen 21:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I looked into SVG, and I plan to try and convert the graphs to SVG at some point. The only way I could find to do that coming from excel was to use the bmp and then convert to svg -- which is hardly ideal.  I'll keep looking for a good SVG graphing or even programming package.  In the mean time I'm going to try and convert the maps I made early to SVG from paths in photoshop and set the charts aside.  (I know Illustrator should be the easiest way, but it drives me crazy with big complex images.)  I'm of course willing to email the source files for the images to anyone who wants to take a stab at it.  --Quasipalm 03:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember that Brooklyn was not a part of NYC until it was annexed in the 1800's. WhisperToMe 03:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to e-mail them to me, I can try and convert them. I use Illustrator, but realize not everyone has it or is familiar with how to use it (hence, why I asked about free software options).  At some point, I'll take a look at SVG Factory, Sodipodi, and Inkscape. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could put a footnote, mentioning the fact about Brooklyn? With the first graph, we could also use a cross-hatch or some fill pattern.  -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 03:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, neither was Queens, the Bronx, or Staten Island. The tables I made are now at Demographics_of_New_York_City.  Also, there are notes about data collection on each image's page.  Here's what I put there:
 * Data
 * Data from 1790 - 1890 was collected from Historical Census Browser.
 * Data from 1900 - 1990 was collected from POPULATION OF THE 100 LARGEST CITIES AND OTHER URBAN PLACES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1790 TO 1990 (New York footnote)
 * Data from 2000 was collected from 2000 Census
 * Notes
 * Queens County data from 1790 to 1890 includes all of Queens County, which included modern day Nassau County.
 * Bronx County data from 1790 to 1890 is based on total Westchester County population.
 * I think it's clearer to present data for all of what is now NYC, simply because if you look at the way it was defined historically, it makes it look like the city more than doubled from 1890 (1,515,301) to 1900 (3,437,202) because it's not an apples to apples (pun intended, hah!) comparison.  Although I think a note that NYC pre 1889 did not include the outter boroughs is a good idea. --Quasipalm 20:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits for concision
This afternoon I did some heavy editing to Culture (consolidated Arts, Media, and Tourism under this banner) and Sports, plus a little editing of Education. I tried to pare down each section. Detail and original text has all been moved to respective sub-article pages. In the last few weeks this article has been pared from 75k+ to a little under 55k. It's now much more manageable and concise. The sub-articles however are in dire need of development. Economy of New York City and Sports in New York City are brand new (with text directly imported from the main NYC article). Culture of New York City needs a lot of work. Wv235 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Revising Intro Graphics
The Chicago article has a very clean city info box layout. New York's is crowded by the (otherwise great) photos of the skyline and Statue of Liberty. I propose moving the Statue of Liberty photo further down and incorporating the skyline photo into the info box, in the manner of Chicago's info box. This will make the intoduction space less cluttered. Wv235 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

--I guess it's at least worth a try. Los Angeles has recently done the same and I think it looks pretty nice. We should also have the portal link contained within the box then too. --Jleon 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---The skyline photo has been incorporated into the city info box. I think the layout is now less cluttered. I couldn't figure out how to get the portal included inside the info box... would be great if someone knows how to do that. The changes meant removing the statue of liberty photo, which I couldn't decide where to put (perhaps under the 'culture' section where the equally great empire state buiding photo is). So that we don't lose the photo for future reference, here's the name of it: Liberty-statue-with-manhattan.jpg. Wv235 06:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

--Thanks, I think it's a huge improvement. I moved the portal link down to culture for the time being. --Jleon 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---Jleon I didn't see your note before I moved the portal link back up to beneath the info box. My thinking is that the portal box will have higher visibilty at the start of the article, and perhaps another editor with the know-how will incorporate the portal into the info box. Wv235 17:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

--I think it does look better below the info box. I had tried to put it there myself, but the formatting looked messed up. I think it looks good now though. --Jleon 18:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

NYSE Pic
--User:Quasipalm, I don't care too much which of the stock exchange pictures we use, but the one you added is 7 years old. The one I had on there is less than 1 year old, and shows more of a street scene. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? --Jleon 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:NYSE july 2003.jpg on commons is nice version, in my opinion. How about it? -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

--That's a good selection for now. --Jleon 21:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of New York City events
Looking for Blizzard info, I came across this article and spent a bit trying to expand it (it was very short when I first saw it). If anyone wants to help try and help expand this timeline, please do! -Quasipalm 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro photo
--I've restored the intro photo back to the one from the Rock Center observation deck. I think most would agree with me that it is far more appropriate for the intro. --Jleon 13:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Image:NewYorkSkyline.jpg is clearly a copyright violation, and in no way do I see a fair use justification.  This image is now listed on IFD. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 19:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention it's just not that great looking. -Quasipalm 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)