Jump to content

Talk:New York City/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

All links seem to lead to useful pages. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Link leads to error page ("Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt."). Dhtwiki (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Only imperial units in the lists

Shouldn't wikipedia stay to using metric unit, or at least metric AND imperial? Basically rest of the world apart from the US uses the metric system, so having all units in this article in imperial only makes this article inaccessible to people from other countries. 37.2.33.140 (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

the readers around the world are smart enough to handle miles. Rjensen (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
the readers around the world are also smart enough to read backwards, or translate Shakespearean English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai robert (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about requested move

I know that sometimes, administrators pose "sanctions" and don't allow a RM for a certain period of time, but I was wondering, would I be allowed to launch a new RM for New York City, after several years of the old RMs? What would you suggest? Thank you!

You want to move to downstate New York cities or where? Rjensen (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: I want to launch a request move for New York City → New York. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 03:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
that's trouble and no help to any one. I recommend against. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If you fully believe that it is trouble, than I will not request a new move, @Rjensen: Thank you, CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 15:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd also give the same advice. The reasons the article is at the current title are sound and correct. oknazevad (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: thank you for your advice! Cheers, CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 01:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This link seems very useful, as it's information I couldn't find on present NYC site. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

NY move request

Editors of this article might be interested in contributing to Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, which involves both New York State article and the City's page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion July 2016 in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New York/July 2016 move request which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New York which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016

population of 18.9 Mil

Ibo2861 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Need a citation for that. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?

Editors interested in New York City may want to contribute to the RFC asking whether New York State the primary topic for the term "New York". — JFG talk 10:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation: The city so nice they named it thrice

As to the continuing disambiguation project, remember, there are three New Yorks. The city so nice they named it "thrice". There is the state, the city, and the county. "New York" is also used for Manhattan which is the same as New York County, New York. A link may say that someone was born in New York, meaning the city, but we should disambiguate it further and say "Manhattan, New York City" so people are not left with the impression that the person could have been born on Staten Island (Richmond County, New York). Many entries that are listed as "New York City, New York" or "New York City" should be corrected to "Manhattan, New York City" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

The image of the Manhattan skyline (below the first image of Midtown and the second image of lower manhattan at sunset) erroneously indicates that One57 and 432 Park Avenue are featured in the photo. However, they are not featured. Both of those buildings are on 57th street, but the photo present on the wikipage of the Manhattan skyline only shows as far north as 53rd street (the building with the slanted roof all the way to the left of the photo is the Citigroup building, which is on 53rd street, therefore buildings such as One57 and 432 Park necessarily must be outside the frame of the photo and therefore references to those two buildings should be removed.

208.80.64.128 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a panable panorama. If you click and drag on it, the parts of Manhattan containing those two buildings become visible. The caption is correct as it is. oknazevad (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

I need to edit this article because I am registered Dirty Minot (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not how this works. This is to request a specific change in the article. Please state what you want to change, and how you want it to read after the edits. oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2016


I want to edit this article to edit the climate data of NYC. 68.195.44.54 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not how this works. This is to request a specific change in the article. Please state what you want to change, and how you want it to read after the edits. Edit requests are to ask someone else to make an edit for you, not to request permission. To edit the article (which cannot be extended on an article-by-article basis). oknazevad (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Van Nuys, Los Angeles#Requested move 1 October 2016

A discussion regarding renaming of Van Nuys, Los Angeles to Van Nuys may have the potential of serving as a precedent for naming conventions of neighborhoods in cities throughout the United States. Participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations/Acronyms

I think the abbreviations/acronyms NYC and NY shall be added. I also did, but it got reverted by @Castncoot:.

  • I can't see how it is unencyclopedic, when it is the worlds most famous abbreviations for cities[1] (along with L.A. I would say).
  • NY is also not just the postal abbreviation for the State. It's a (worldwide) well known and used abbreviation. Just see the I ❤ NY logo, which also appear on this page, and Nicknames of New York City.

According to MOS:ABBR, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses", and since that is a generally accepted standard, I can't see why this should not be followed.

If it shall not be added in parentheses, I think it should be written something in the lead like on L.A. (often known by its initials L.A.) or the nicknames page (frequently shortened to simply "New York," "NY," or "NYC").

/PatrikN (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [https://www.reference.com/geography/prominent-city-abbreviations-54120d61d511710c What are some prominent city abbreviations?

"The City"

"The City" should not be listed as an acceptable alternative name and should not appear in the lead for two primary reasons. Firstly, the two terms are not interchangeable: considering the global audience that uses Wikipedia, someone who mentions "The City" will not always be understood to mean New York City. In fact, the disambiguation page for The City lists several different cities that are called by that name, not to mention that the generic term "the city" is used almost universally to refer to the closest large city. Actually, there is even disagreement among New Yorkers over whether "The City" refers to the whole city or merely to the borough of Manhattan. Secondly, there is a precedent not to refer to regional nicknames in the lead even when the connection between referent and nickname is unambiguous: for example, Auld Reekie and Philly redirect to Edinburgh and Philadelphia, respectively, but these titles are given only cursory mention in the sidebar. Mcmcg (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree I would say the same, that it's a generic term almost every city uses. /PatrikN (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Climate

I cannot understand what the mean temperature is for each month. This is the most important information. Where is it? 69.122.19.225 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Demographics - Religion

"Islam ranks third in New York City, with official estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1,000,000 observers and including 10% of the city's public schoolchildren,[280] followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other religions, as well as atheism."

According to reference 276 (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/29/major-u-s-metropolitan-areas-differ-in-their-religious-profiles/), the Muslim share (as well as the Hindu) is 3%, approximately 250,000 people. As far as I see, there is no reference for "between 600,000 and 1,000,000". -- Artemis Fowl II. (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Colorized Seal

I suggest that we should be using the monochromatic version of the seal - the artist him/herself admits that the version currently in use is purely speculative ("there are no official standards for the seal colors. The version shown here represents the contributor's attempt to use as many historically accurate hues as possible") and the city's Green Book itself only includes a monochromatic version[2]. SixFourThree (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree

Absolutely agree. Any color version is speculative, therefore WP:OR. It cannot remain. oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanx for the information. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Change the title of the page.

I ask respectfully for an administrator to change the title of this page to "New York (city)". The city is officially incorporated as the "City of New York", not "New York City". Let's call the city by its actual name, not a nickname to differentiate it from the U.S. state of New York, and the title of the state of New York's page should be changed to "New York (state)". There are three different entities referred to as "New York": the U.S. state, the U.S. city that is within the territory of the U.S. state, and the borough of Manhattan within the territory of the U.S. city that is referred to in the post as "New York, New York" or "New York, NY". "New York (state)" already redirects to the page "New York" (the page for the U.S. state), "New York (city)" already redirects to the page "New York City" (this page - the page for the U.S. city), and searches on the English Wikipedia for "New York, NY" and "New York, New York" should redirect to the page "Manhattan", not the page "New York City". Give me a handgun that I can carry with me and keep at home. (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. We go with the most common naming convention for the city. El_C 19:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The most common name is New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A) Don't think that is true. B) Even if it is, it's completely ambiguous, and the current title is WP:NATURALDIS. Per existing guidelines and policy, the current title is by far the best for this article, as it's utterly unambiguous. There is no reason to change this title. oknazevad (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
One point here worth considering: why does New York, New York redirect here as opposed to Manhattan? Isn't the use of that referring to New York county, which would be Manhattan, not the entire City? -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 06:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC) never mind, read the archives. -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 06:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverting new layout and new image

Hey @Castncoot:! I am wondering why you changed the edits by me? Firstly, i took out the image of the Korea street, simply due to the fact that Koreans, compared with other minorities, do not play such a major role in the city. There are many other minorities who have way bigger populations. So in case one wants to take a third image, which imho one should not, because it leads to too many pictures, one should take one of another group. Secondly, why did you put the photo of the pride parade to the left? If possible one should align images on the right. In this case i do not see any benefit from aligning it on the left, it also overlaps with the new section of Religion. That is why obviously it fits better on the right side. Thirdly, why did you reincluded the old image of Silicon Valley? The old image is firstly old, and secondly has got a very low quality. Thanks for responding.--Joobo (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joobo, thanks for your message! I would first respectfully take exception to your statement that Koreans don't play a significant role in the city. That is simply not true. To have created quite a formidable business district at the heart of Manhattan is no small feat and requires a) a critical mass (in this case, 100K in the city proper and over 200K in the metro area), b) some level of determination and effort, and c) there are Koreatown, Manhattan and three other freestanding NYC-area Koreatown articles in Wikipedia. Therefore, firstly, it meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. As far as your mention of three images, since New York City's great demographic depth and breadth have ultimately made it the global city that it is, I think three (perhaps even up to four, if split into two pairs of images) would actually be a very appropriate number here. Thirdly, it came down to image quality and availability for both this and the Silicon Alley image (Silicon Valley is actually on the West Coast of the United States) - the K-town image is excellent and clearly demonstrates the Hangul characters - and I couldn't find other such high quality images representative of ethnic groups in New York on Commons. By the way, thank you so much for adding on the Spanish Harlem image! On the other hand, the Silicon Alley image that you put up is actually dark and with less pictorial resolution, and perhaps more importantly, of the landmark Flatiron Building, perhaps the icon best symbolizing Silicon Alley and its nascency in the Flatiron District. But your point that the old picture is outdated is very valid, and I've found a more recent one which clearly highlights the Flatiron Building. Finally, your layout had the LGBT image awkwardly placed. So that was my rationale behind my edits. Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for responding@Castncoot: . Well i am not saying Koreans are not significant in NYC, i am just saying there are other groups that are notably more significant. To my mind for instance, Italians or Indians would be among them. Of course i agree that the taken image of Koreastreet/town is nice. I would say either one keeps the two images of Chinatown and the image of Spanish Harlem, or one uses 4 images in this way. Yes i meant Silicon Alley of course. Its just the habit-Valley. Ok, i agree taking that picture then. If i am correct the Alley is slightly more leaning to the east from the Building so the image capturing the view is acceptable. Regarding the lgbt image. I do not know what screen you are using, that is also a point to keep in mind. At least to me it fits definitely better on the right side, perhaps we need to ask other users here to give their opinion, how it looks to them, either on the left or right site. What are your thoughts?--Joobo (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind the four images used in that way, in fact that's a great idea - but just bear in mind that the pictorial resolution, especially of characters, has to be preserved. Maybe we can add a picture of Little Italy - my only reservation is that the Italian population has all but left - but it's still noteworthy for its history. Or could you obtain and upload an image of Little India on 74th Street between Roosevelt Avenue and 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, Queens? This would represent the fourth ethnic image. Logic dictates that if you are OK with two images and four images, then three should be fine in the meantime. So let's compromise here. You can substitute that Flatiron District image if you like, I'm OK with that, even if I prefer an image that really shows the Flatiron Building more prominently as the iconic symbol of Silicon Alley. I also don't care if the LGBT picture is on the right as long as it corresponds to the proper section. Keep in mind though that it's been on the left for a very long time and that you are the first to bring this up. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I changed the position of the pride parade image. Also i used the proposed image for the Silicon Alley. Regarding 4 images, we have to see what is available on commons right now. What you say about the Italian community is correct. However it plays still a major role also in the historical context of the city, and well there "still" is a Little Italy. Perhaps one might request for someone to take an image, eventhough that might take time.--Joobo (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed on all fronts - except that, just to let you know - the pride image is now smack dab in the Religion section on my screen, and completely outside the Sexual orientation and gender identity section. Are you really seeing it in the correct position on your screen? Castncoot (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
On my screen it is no issue, i suppose you are using a widescreen. On my screen it is portrayed that after the map of the ethnic distribution on the right, there comes a part of text witht the same size as the map. Then comes the Image of the parade and again some free space and some text, that is together, sligthly smaller than the image. Then comes the image gallery of Religion. I do not know how it is portrayed on your screen exactly. Joobo (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
On my screen, it is immediately below the racial distribution map and just a bit to the right of the Atheism image. There is no intervening text or free space involved. As a result, it looks entirely a part of the Religion section. I really think it would be better served back on the left and in the position I had moved it to (just a bit higher than previously) just before you relocated it - the point is that it needs to make sense on all screens. Left alignment of images is ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia and perfectly acceptable if otherwise relevant. Also keep in mind that it has been in that left-aligned position for years without objection. Your help recently has really been appreciated, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Joobo, your 4-ethnic image picture looks great. Thank you! Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @Castncoot:. Could you please take out the second image showing the particular LGBT Person? It is again too many images, plus for this City article it also appears to be not relevant enough. Thanks. -----Joobo (talk)

I respectfully decline. The second image and caption deal specifically with the transgender community, and there is a specific and reliably sourced transgender text section that it directly corresponds to. Therefore, it is WP:NOTABLE. Castncoot (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully insist. There is no doubt that there is a relatively big transgender community in NYC (well, its the biggest City of the United States). There is also no Problem with the sources. Nevertheless, there are too many images and with that image one has 3 images regarding lgbt community in this article. Two are perfectly good as well. So as said, its not only an aspect of relevance, but also of the layout regarding the amount of images. Joobo (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I think your reasoning is objectively fallacious. The first image, in the history section, deals specifically with a sentinel historical event in the city's chronological diary and flows chronologically in that section. It has nothing to do with the other two. Regarding the other two, the top portrays a gay pride march celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York in 2011, while the second portrays a transgender theme - two totally different issues, and both correspond with the appropriate text. Any kind of potential association between the historical image and the other two never even occurred to me (and probably to most others) before you mentioned this, evidenced by the fact that this status quo has been there for years before you brought it up. Why is that? Castncoot (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
There would be plenty of other images also perfectly good for the history part in which the LGBT image is included. It also needs to be taken into account. But, to me, its fine like that. Yet that is not the main point. Primarily the image of the portrayed person does not fit in the layout at all, and most likely not only on my screen. It is not that the content would be wrong or not adequate, it just does not fit into the article, and again two images regarding this aspect of society of the city are good as well for this city article. Also one should on a city article not go too much into detail. LGBT is a broad and diverse spectrum which imho one does not has to protray each and every aspect of it via an image on a particular city page. Also there is a particluar article for it. In case we cannot agree on that, one might take other users opinions into account. greetings .Joobo (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
As there is no further response, I feel free to take the image out due to the given points above. The image is also included in the main article regarding the LGBT culture in NYC. Greetings.--Joobo (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

New montage

The current one is about 3 years old and since then, 432 Park Avenue has been completed which is a major landmark due to the fact that it's the tallest residential building in the world. Even if we don't add it to the montage by itself we still need a new skyline image. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Move request underway

Hi all

This is a heads up to let you know that there is a requested move, proposing to move the New York (disambiguation) page to New York, and the current New York page to New York (state). Please go to Talk:New York (disambiguation), read through the request and give your thoughts and feedback in the discussion. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sister Cities of New York City

What happened to the list of sister cities of New York City? Whose bright idea was it to remove them? The King Gemini (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Which city

See Talk:New York#Which city for a discussion which affects this page. Andrewa (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

One thing I'm particularly interested in discussing is the exact scope of this (New York City) article. The example I have been using is MetLife Stadium. It appears (to a Sydneysider) that it's in the city of New York but not in New York City, is that a fair statement?

Do you see why I'm having trouble with this?

This isn't a unique problem, and not the fault of New Yorkers. The question of whether the British Houses of Parliament are in the city of London is equally puzzling. They are, but not in the City of London. I think our article structure makes this plain. We need to (long term) aim for similar clarity with New York, and I'm not sure that we have that yet. Andrewa (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request to fix wide image caption accessibility

In cityscape section where File:10 mile panorama of NYC, taken June, 2017.jpg appears with the wide image template, please replace it with the following:

Ten-mile Manhattan panorama from 120th Street to the Battery, taken June 2017 from Weehawken, New Jersey.
  1. Riverside Church
  2. Time Warner Buildings
  3. 220 Central Park South
  4. One57
  5. 432 Park Avenue
  6. Chrysler Building
  7. Bank of America Tower
  8. Conde Nast Building
  9. The New York Times Building
  10. Empire State Building
  11. Met Life Tower
  12. Hudson Yards
  13. Hudson Yards
  14. Hudson Yards
  15. 56 Leonard Street
  16. 8 Spruce Street
  17. Woolworth Building
  18. 70 Pine Street
  19. 30 Park Place
  20. 40 Wall Street
  21. Three World Trade Center
  22. Four World Trade Center
  23. One World Trade Center

This is per MOS:HLIST for accessibility, effectively so that a screen reader user doesn't have to start over from list item 1 to read a previous list item again (which would be damn frustrating with a long list like this). Blockquote element need not be included. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC); edited 03:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

the percentage on religion section adds up to more than 100%

59% christians, 18% jews, 10-18% muslims, 24% irreligious, plus more buddhists hindi and more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nuances of culture

There's definitely more niches to be filled here. Like this NYT article I stumbled across, which holds true today. Wikipedians might have an aversion to anything but hard facts and statistics, but the first half of this article should be included. Should look out for more little cultural things like this... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The name of this page should be changed

There's a clear consensus to not have any more discussions regarding renaming articles on New York at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The name of this page should be changed to "New York (city)", and other relevant changes throughout all of Wikipedia should be made. The reasoning for this is because the page that is presently named "New York (state)" used to be named merely "New York", without any specificity as to the definition of what the entity known as "New York" is. The Light Arts (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And so it begins. Again. --Jayron32 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I doubt it is finished yet, but we're making progress. There is no possibility IMO of ever moving New York (state) back to the base name, particularly as there was never any consensus to have it there in the first place. But of course I could be wrong. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The Light Arts, there will probably be a new RM in 2018 proposing to move this article to the base name New York and the DAB back to New York (disambiguation). See User:Andrewa/NYRM2018 and feel free to contribute there or (probably better) discuss on its talk page. But there was a general feeling that we were over NYRMs for the moment, hence the informal and non-binding one-year moratorium. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moratorium

I've updated the NYS FAQ with a note as to the informal moratorium on NYRMs. Are there other places this should go? Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And this has been reverted by JFG with the summary Sorry, I don't think that talking about an "informal and non-binding but popular moratorium" helps editors figure out what is the current status.
Power~enwiki noted above that There's a clear consensus to not have any more discussions regarding renaming articles on New York at this time. Is that a better phrasing?
It seems to me that something about giving it a break belongs in the FAQ, considering what's there already. Other ideas?
And maybe it would be better discussed at talk:New York (state) for obvious reasons... I didn't expect it to be controversial. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewa: The discussions about a moratorium mostly took place among a very limited circle of "regulars" at the Great New York Debates of 2016–2017. As far as I remember, there was no consensus for or against a moratorium among participants in the many discussions. This is why I thought that mentioning an "informal but popular" moratorium in the FAQ was not an accurate description of the state of affairs: the idea of a moratorium was indeed informal but certainly not popular (outside of a few regulars). Therefore I think we should remain silent in the FAQ, unless people start raising questions and controversy again (which thankfully has not happened since the move was implemented!) — JFG talk 13:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply JFG. It seems to me that there are two issues here.
Firstly the phrasing. Although Power~enwiki does not mention the word moratorium, that's the term that was used in previous discussion, and it seems to me to still be the right term. But if we just call it a clear consensus to not have any more discussions... that's fine by me, and there may be better descriptions still. Open to suggestions, and this is not an important issue IMO.
Secondly the facts, and this is important. I agree 100% with Power~enwiki that a whatever-you-want-to-call-it exists. So I have to disagree with you on this point, and possibly Jayron32 does too, interested to hear more from them. Agree that it's not easy to call it from the lengthy and convoluted previous discussions but I think we can. I also disagree that raising questions and controversy again... has not happened. It has. That's the whole point.
And if this whatever-you-want-to-call-it does exist, then the lengthy comment at Talk:New York/FAQ should mention it, IMO, and the three relevant talk pages should either do so too or (better) link to the FAQ . See #Current FAQs. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Whether a moratorium exists or does not, it should and I would vote for it with every part of my being. The issue is that the system for naming articles regarding New York City and New York State is inconsequential and arbitrary, and as such, regardless of which names we use, they will ALWAYS be unacceptable to enough people that they will want to move them to something else in perpetuity. It's not important to me what they are at; as long as whatever they are at now is final. I don't care what they're called, I care that we don't have to move them again. --Jayron32 02:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I don't really care whether a "moratorium" exists or not either. But I agree that a clear consensus to not have any more discussions exists for the short term at least, and think that, as these FAQs exist and deal with the topic of the article names, they should say something to that effect. Otherwise we'll have more of these, and that's exactly the sort of problem a FAQ exists to solve. Isn't it? Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I took the liberty to rephrase the FAQ entry,[3] expanding on the improvements by Alanscottwalker. I hope you like it. I'm still hesitant to mention a moratorium, because I am not convinced that we have sufficient community consensus to "impose" it. Perhaps a more nuanced phrasing would work, e.g. Further discussions are deemed unproductive unless new arguments come to light. (just a suggestion, but I still prefer saying nothing.) — JFG talk 23:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Talk:New York (state) also includes a prominent notice saying "Several proposals to rename this article have been made and are described in this page's FAQ. Before making a new move proposal, please review past discussions." This looks to me like sufficient deterrent to potential rekindling of the fire. Perhaps a similar notice could be added here at Talk:New York City to discourage threads such as #The name of this page should be changed? — JFG talk 23:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly.
Ideally, all three FAQs would have some sort of notice, and each of the three talk pages would link to them in a consistent manner that explicitly suggested reading the FAQ before proposing page moves. Whether it's by transclusion of a hidden and expandable FAQ or by a wikilink to it I can argue both ways, but I can't see any good reason for the inconsistency. Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that, as you say, there has never been any explicit consensus for a "moratorium", but then there's never been any explicit consensus for any specific proposal. But I think we do have a clear consensus to not have any more discussions... of some vague sort, and I think that is in fact a moratorium. But if the word offends people, by all means avoid it too. It seems nonsensical to avoid the term to me, but as long as we describe it effectively, however clumsily we describe it does relatively little damage. The important thing is to describe it at all! Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Current FAQs

Currently:

  • There's an inline FAQ dedicated to this one question at Talk:New York [4]
  • There's a link to the FAQ page at Talk:New York (state) [5] (which calls it this page's FAQ, my emphasis)
    • The FAQ is of course (rightly IMO) at Talk:New York/FAQ (not Talk:New York (state)/FAQ, again my emphasis) and deals with this one question
  • There's an inline FAQ covering two questions but which doesn't mention page titles at all at Talk:New York City [6]

which leaves room for improvement IMO. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker has now updated this page to point instead to Talk:New York (state)/FAQ, and as this already already existed this makes a bit more sense. Talk:New York/FAQ is still transcluded to Talk:New York as an inline FAQ. He's also updated the New York (state) FAQ. Talk:New York City/FAQ was already transcluded as an inline FAQ at Talk:New York City (this page) as noted above.
So we now have the three different FAQs in use, one by a link and the others by transclusion. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Heads-ups

I've posted heads-ups at the New York and New York (state) talk pages, as they're both involved. Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Reduce tedious mention of various statistical agencies

The lede contains this couple of sentences with cited sources:

"The New York City metropolitan region is the most populous in the United States, as defined by both the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), 20.2 million residents,[4] and the Combined Statistical Area (CSA), 23.7 million residents.[5] In 2013, the MSA produced a gross metropolitan product (GMP) of nearly US$1.39 trillion.[39] In 2012, the CSA[40] generated a GMP of over US$1.55 trillion."

I propose to reduce this to something like the following (with all cited sources retained):

"The New York City metropolitan region is the most populous in the United States, with over 20 million residents [4][5] In 2013, the NYC region had a gross productivity of approximately US$1.5 trillion.[39][40]. NYC's GDP is higher than the GDPs of all but 11 and 12 countries.[41]"

It is, admittedly, slightly less specific (not mentioning all sorts of "areas"), but the sources serve to provide specificity. Thoughts? Objections? Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this.
I think these proposed changes are lazy and unencyclopedic - may I also say downright awful? Castncoot (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that detail on the MSA and CSA can be left to the sources, and the shortened version is more readable. However, the last phrase comparing NYC to countries is awkwardly written (wouldn't say "awful" but sub-standard). I'll try and improve that. — JFG talk 05:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, JFG, you've made a substantial improvement. Castncoot (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Glad to be of service! — JFG talk 23:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Economy: City economic overview

This section contains the sentneces:

"New York is a global hub of business and commerce. In 2012, New York City topped the first Global Economic Power Index, published by The Atlantic (to be differentiated from a namesake list published by the Martin Prosperity Institute), with cities ranked according to criteria reflecting their presence on similar lists as published by other entities.[306]"

where the citation [306] is to the Atlantic article. I propose to reduce this to:

'New York is a global hub of business and commerce.[306]"

keeping the Atlantic citation but removing the laborious sentence that doesn't really say much. Attic Salt (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. It's outdated anyway. Castncoot (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

City Parks Central Park area

On the page, Central Park is listed at 883 acres. This is incorrect. Central Park is 843 acres (3.41 sq.km.) Sources: Central Park wiki page,a View on Cities Webpage and 10 largest parks in NYC webpage.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I fixed this, but numerical values often need cited sources. Attic Salt (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I found a source, added. it. Attic Salt (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits as per GA and peer reviews

This article has had a number of reviews (though some time ago): [7] and [8], I made a series of edits, such as [9] and [10], and some other editors made some edits: [11], only to have almost all of them reversed: [12]. I wonder whether or not this is reasonable. Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • GA does not mean "perfect" and "cannot be changed". Changes to articles, even FA level articles, are expected every day. Wikipedia should always be improving, and if someone can improve an article, other's should not stop them merely because the article was assessed at some level. --Jayron32 13:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The article actually failed the Good Article assessment, and I was editing in response to the reviews that led to that failure -- to try to fix things. Attic Salt (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Remember that, if reverted, you can always discuss the edit here, per WP:BRD. Your edits—certainly the one removing what I, too, would regard as superfluous wording, regarding powerful storms hitting the area—don't seem "bizarre". However, just because you think you're making improvements, doesn't mean others will agree. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Understood, and I'm here to discuss these edits. I'd like to restore them. Attic Salt (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the edits, which were, by the way, motivated by the GA and peer reviews. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Please get current consensus in 2017 for any major changes. Castncoot (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
No. He doesn't need your (or anyone elses) approval to improve the article, and you have no right to attempt to lock down the current text by mere assertion and repeated reverts. Permission is NOT REQUIRED to improve any Wikipedia article, and consensus does not have to be sought for every minor edit. To demand that he come here and seek your permission for every change he has to make is onerous and unacceptable. Prior approval is never required at Wikipedia for uncontroversial fixes, and fixes don't become controversial merely because you don't want any changes to your precious text. Just quit it and let him do his work already. If you don't have specific actionable objections beyond "I like it the way it was" then back the heck off will you. --Jayron32 23:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
You obviously have a difficult time reading. I asked him to get consensus for major changes, not every minor edit. Castncoot (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You obviously have a low threshold for "major". Your recent reverts as evidenced here consist mostly of reverting Attic Salt's minor wording changes and tightening up some superfluous language. Yes, he made a lot of them, but almost none of it changed any substantive facts in the article, and on the bulk improved the article by reducing superfluous verbiage without substantively changing the meaning of anything. If after he did that, you had some things to change back, then deal with those bits, but all you are doing is committing a blanket revert of any changes anyone does, without actually looking into whether they are useful or not. Nothing he did was a major change, everything was small, and most of it made the article better. If what he did is what you call "major changes" when you reverted him, then there is no fix too minor for you to demand someone justify themselves to you. It's not helpful for you to take such a heavy-handed ownership of any article, and you really need to back down. --Jayron32 00:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious? Several of his/her edits were based upon claims about reviews from five and eleven years ago from an essentially different article then, per his/her edit summaries. The more mundane edits didn't carry that faulty reasoning and I restored several of them, if with some tweaking. And I'm sorry, but we need to maintain a high standard here, as User:JFG has done with his/her edits and the valid reasoning given in the summaries. Do you see me objecting about JFG's edits? You really need to apologize to me for accusing me of ownership. And how do you know that Attic Salt is male? What kind of an administrator are you anyway? Castncoot (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

With this edit: [13], I removed redundancy that was noted in the 2013 GA assessment: [14], but which has been sitting there unresolved after all of these years. Attic Salt (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That edit is acceptable, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The section on "Culture and contemporary life" contains the following paragraph:

"New York City has been described as the cultural capital of the world by the diplomatic consulates of Iceland[23] and Latvia[24] and by New York's Baruch College.[25] A book containing a series of essays titled New York, Culture Capital of the World, 1940–1965 has also been published as showcased by the National Library of Australia.[26] In describing New York, author Tom Wolfe said, "Culture just seems to be in the air, like part of the weather."[414]"

Do we need this? Attic Salt (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it's a relevant, constructive, informative, and appropriately sourced passage, and was carefully vetted and put together by a few of us editors a few years ago. I don't remember the location of the discussion now. After the 2012 reviews, a number of us editors had extensive discussions and modified the article significantly — this is a part of the end product of our discussions. Castncoot (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
How is this constructive, informative, and appropriately sourced? Really, it is a bit of fluff and the cited sources are marginal at best. Attic Salt (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You obviously think that culture is fluff, and there's nothing I can do about that. That quote by Tom Wolfe, by the way, is an extremely famous quote about New York's culture and would be remiss not to be included. In the meantime, why don't we say in the lede, "Over 120 colleges and universities are located in New York City, including Columbia University, New York University, and Rockefeller University, which have been ranked among the top universities in the world."? This way we don't assign a specific number, and yet we actually make some sense in and some justification for stating these specific universities in the first place. One final question for you - you have acknowledged an investigation upon youself for sockpuppetry in the edit summary (which you called "spurious"). May I ask how it is that you edit like an experienced autoconfirmed user and yet your oldest edit is listed as on September 22, 2017, less than one month ago? Castncoot (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. Other editors might have opinions on this paragraph. I am autoconfirmed, yes. I moved the university ranking material to the body of the article. Attic Salt (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I guess you're evading my question about how your current autoconfirmed account has somehow gained so much experience within just one month. Yes, I saw your addition down in the Education section, but you have now agreed with my compromise statement in the lede, and I will place as such. Castncoot (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Like most editors, I edit here anonymously. I am experienced, but not a sock. I also edit constructively. Attic Salt (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You might want to check on the policy about doing that, editing dually. I am not an admin and would not know that answer with certainty. Castncoot (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I only have one account. Attic Salt (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
But editing dually along with the IP, just clarifying my wording above. Castncoot (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Boroughs :Bronx County and City Parks Pelham Bay Park land mass

I believe Pelham Bay Park's final land area was assessed at 2,772 acres (1,122 ha) in 2013. Source: New York City Dept.of Parks website and Wikipedia page. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Updated in the article. Castncoot (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Re:Update on Pelham Bay Park acreage

Good morning. Go to City parks,first paragraph where it states Pelham Bay Park size.Please change to 2,772 acres(1,122 ha)so it matches up where in The Boroughs section, The Bronx,the park's acreage was just adjusted.Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed the area for the sake of consistency, but then reverted. I note that the article Pelham Bay Park says that the area is disputed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have updated again based on a new source. epicgenius (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Article length

This article is extremely long. At about 320KB, it's the biggest city article I'm aware of; significantly longer than the next-longest ones of Jerusalem, London, and Paris (which are 230-260KB). However, geography articles are often long, and this is not so long as to need for a maintenance tag; United States is significantly longer and doesn't have one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

νew Υork City listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Νew Υork City. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Puerto Rican Americans"

Under Demographics, the article claims that New York "has the largest ... Puerto Rican American ... population in the United States". "Puerto Rican American" links to "Puerto Rican migration to New York", which is a completely different subject from "Puerto Rican American".

First, there are 3.4 million Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico and 1.5 million Puerto Ricans in New York, so the statement is clearly wrong. The cited source that does not mention Puerto Rican Americans in any way.

Second, Puerto Rican American is a pleonasm. It is like saying "Californian American" or "Texan American". It is meaningless nonsense. Kraikk (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Income

I added the following line to this section: "New York City is one of the few most populated American cities that requires its residents to pay a personal income tax,[309] which ranges from 2.9% - 3.9% (in 2017).[310] Non-residents who work in the city are also required to pay this tax."


I believe that this was wrongly removed by: Castncoot who claims that: "(rvt gf edit - inaccurate unless mentioned in context of deductibility against state income tax; if that issue is expressed correctly, then statement can be made accurate, which is critical)"


It is a fact that NYC residents have to pay income tax to the city....whether they can deduct it from their state income tax is irrelevant, and could change depending on changes in STATE law, (as well as which STATE they live in, as a non-resident) as we are currently seeing with changes in FEDERAL law. (It would be inaccurate *IF* we were to talk about NYC residents' total tax burden, which I was NOT talking about here.)


In addition, if someone feels a statement is inaccurate because it lacks context, then I believe a more appropriate response would be to ADD the additional information to add the context, rather than simply delete truthful and factual statements.

Avatar317 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Avatar317

I agree. In fact, I reverted Castncoot's removal of the addition, only to be reverted by, yes, Castncoot. Attic Salt (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

One more thing I thought of: In my initial edit, I EXPLICITY stated: "I'm not sure of the best LOCATION within this article to have this info, so I put it where I think it fits best." If it would fit better under a heading of "Income Tax" rather than "Income"....then let's create such a category. Avatar317 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Avatar317

@Avatar317: There is a guideline in Wikipedia which prevents statements that may be technically "accurate" while standing on their own but are misleading in the overall milieu that actually exists. It is called WP:UNDUE. If you look at my edit summary, I wasn't suggesting that the city income tax should not be stated at all. In fact, I was alluding just the opposite, that it could indeed be reasonably stated, but in the context of portraying it as not to actually mislead the reader. The taxpayer is often allowed to deduct the city income tax from state tax they would otherwise pay. (Just as a quick example, see this.) If this fact is not mentioned, then an unwitting reader would be led to believe that the taxpayer is always obligated to pay both. The way you had stated the issue did in fact give this impression. If you can restate it with a caveat that the city income tax may indeed be deductible upon commensurate state tax, then your referenced statement could in fact represent a constructively welcome addition. I think it would be just fine in the Income subsection. Thank you for both being an editor in good standing and for bringing this issue to the talk page instead of simply reverting with a reckless edit summary. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Thank you for a civil explanation of your thoughts/beliefs on this matter.
How about I create a section "Income Tax" and change the statement I originally wrote to this instead:
"New York City is one of the few most populated American cities that levies an income tax; on both its residents and all non-residents who work in the city, which ranges from 2.9% - 3.9% (in 2017). This tax may be deductible from a taxpayer's state income tax, (depending on the state the person resides in) thereby potentially not increasing their total tax burden. As an example, New Jersey allows this deduction. (NJ link)"
BTW, your comment about WP:UNDUE is not pertinent here. "...fairly represent all significant viewpoints..." The existence of taxation by a locality is not VIEWPOINT, it is FACT, and whether it is deductible or not is also fact.
Also, when *I* come across a statement in Wikipedia which appears unclear or incomplete, I don't remove someone else's work. I make a note to myself to ADD text to clarify/complete the statement, and I try my best to simply ADD without removing the text others have contributed, unless it is necessary for clarity/readability/accuracy.
If YOU felt that my addition was misleading without the deductibility comment, why didn't YOU simply add a sentence to the end of my original paragraph? (rather than DELETING my contribution)
Avatar317 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Avatar317

I might be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, non-residents are not taxed. Is there a source that says they are? Also, residents cannot deduct the city tax from their state tax; it is additional. Station1 (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Avatar317: First of all, I would kindly request you not to spell many of your words in all caps or likewise embolden them - it makes you sound like you're screaming at people uncontrollably, and it distracts from what you're trying to say. If you want to add content, then it's your burden to get it right - and that means accuracy, both standing alone and conveying verifiable information that is appropriately stated in context. It's not my burden to clean up after you. If it were, can you imagine how chaotic Wikipedia would be to edit? Now, with regard to the actual content, just to clarify, non-city residents who work in the city are taxed, but this tax can be at least partially deductible in New Jersey. I don't believe we need a separate section for income tax - that would be highly WP:UNDUE (which, by the way, also deals with the concept of giving the appropriate weight to different aspects of stated content, not just the viewpoint issue you brought up above), and this material fits appropriately within the Income subsection. Stating the actual numbers for 2017 is also not necessary; as you pointed out above, laws (and therefore numbers) may change. The more generically stated for now, the better. I will add material as such. Thank you for your constructive contribution. Best, Castncoot (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Non-residents do not pay city income tax. You added a ref that refers to city employees who live outside the city in NY state, who have to pay a city waiver liability that is the equivalent of the city income tax but technically not an income tax. It does not refer to other non-residents. [15] Station1 (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'll use normal text from now on. I use uppercase for words I wish to emphasize.
Thank you for your improvements to the NYC article.
I apologize for being confused such that I thought I had included info about non-residents paying NYC tax, I see now that I was wrong about that fact. I mis-read the page at the link you recently included to be more than NYC city-employees, and had heard from pre-internet days that non-residents had to pay income tax. Clearly that is no longer the case, if it ever was.
@Castncoot @Station1 QUESTION: I included a link to taxfoundation.org in my original edit to justify "one of the relatively few American cities levying an income tax" ....in your opinion(s), do we generally want links verifying these types of statements?
Thanks!
Avatar317 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Avatar317
My apologies to Station1 as well. Thank you for setting the record straight on that issue. That particular link is outdated, unfortunately, but a current link wouldn't be unreasonable. Castncoot (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Avatar317: Yes, non-residents did pay city income tax at one time, but that was ended by a court case a number of years ago. I agree a good reflink is reasonable. It's not strictly required for uncontroversial statements, but it helps preclude later deletion on the grounds it's unsourced. Station1 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Time to change the title of this article

The U.S. state of New York has an article titled "New York (state)" - see the article: New York (state). Therefore, it would be appropriate to change the title of this article to "New York (city)", and make associated appropriate and relevant changes. InterestingCircle (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry User:Motivação just had this talk with you a few months ago. --Moxy (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

In the last paragraph under the heading "Dutch Rule"

REPLACE

In 1647, Peter Stuyvesant began his tenure as the last Director-General of New Netherland. During his tenure, the population of New Amsterdam grew from under 2,000 to 8,000.

WITH

In 1647, Peter Stuyvesant began his tenure as the last Director-General of New Netherland. During his tenure, the population of New Netherland grew from under 2,000 to 8,000.

Richardhowenyc2012 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

[1]

Richardhowenyc2012 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Richardhowenyc2012 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jaap Jacobs. The Colony of New Netherland: A Dutch Settlement in Seventeenth-Century America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009, p. 32

City of NY gun laws

Please, add the city of NY gun law. I am searching and can't find the main source about the topic. Everything u can find will be very appreciated!✌️ Thank u. Escabi1490 (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Metropolitan area

In all WP articles of U.S. cities, the "metropolitan area" is the U.S. Census Bureau's Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). It is always cited in the introduction as the standard metro area. The WP article New York metropolitan area references the MSA figure as well as the Combined Statistical Area (CSA), a larger trade/marketing region. Both figures should be cited in the intro to this article, not just the larger CSA. The latter figure alone is (at best) inconsistent across Wikipedia and (at worst) POV boosterism. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that boosterism was ever intended, but I do like your new revision, thank you. Castncoot (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The Subject bar template as the bottom of the article duplicates some of the Interwiki links in the External links section. Any thoughts on (fixing) this? —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bump. Castncoot? Epicgenius? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the two duplicate boxes. epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for addressing this matter. Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Epicgenius —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

please change ((GMP)) to GMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:2406:cd8f:b9ea:d626 (talk)

 Not done: GMP is the abbreviation for Gross Metropolitan Product, which is why it's in parentheses immediately after. "In 2017, the New York metropolitan area produced a gross metropolitan product (GMP) of US$1.73 trillion." It's correct as written. That said, I am correcting the link on GMP to point to the correct article rather than the DAB page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_City/Archive_17&oldid=1148111529"