Talk:Queens/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image problems

File:Giant fixed pixel size image at Queens article.png

We have a few image problem in the article including fix pixel size...sandwich of text and undue gallery of minni images indicating that highways are the most important thing here.,,thus it needs many images. Let alone some sections with no images and others just overwhelmed with images. Any suggestions on how we can fix the accessibility concerns?--Moxy (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the complaint in the first image. I think the general standard is for an exception against the sandwiching guideline with the case of infoboxes. If there was no exception, then those sections adjacent to the infobox would not be allowed any photos whatsoever, which is ridiculous. This exception has precedents in Featured Articles - I could easily find some like Bull Run River (Oregon), Bulgaria, Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania), and Nauru. As for the other problematic images you indicated, I think they're atrocious and need to go. ɱ (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Realistically there's rarely a good reason to sandwich text and make the sentence fragmented for some readers MOS:ACCIM.... but I do agree it's the norm sometimes for infoboxes... but in this case it's a navigational box regurgitating links in the section and other navboxes. WP:SANDWICH "How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages or cha­rts that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar." --Moxy (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the gallery from the Transportation section. Now the article looks adequately imaged. Castncoot (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, Moxy, WP:SANDWICH is probably the least enforced, least respected, and has the lowest degree of consensus of any guideline or policy. If FAs do it plenty with infoboxes, we can do it here. And this Long Island navbox serves as an extension of the infobox, as these topical navboxes do. If you want to remove the navbox, go ahead, but it seems it's used on all other articles it links to. Consider too reducing the size of the largely useless icon of an image in that navbox. ɱ (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply horrible to hear this POV about an MoS geared towards disabled people. Now that your bringng this to light in this manner....I think your right and its time that its a policy based item.... we're pretty lucky the foundation already backs this so it shouldn't be too hard. That said I have not written a policy proposal in a long time....will ping you when it's ready.-Moxy (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a policy, so your mention that "simply horrible people don't care" is worthy of a topic ban on these MOS topics. Watch your tongue. Let me know if you write a policy on sandwiching, I'll be happy to vote against it. It's 2019 and mobile and desktop Wikipedia are well-designed not to have sentences broken up in an illegible way when sandwiched. So what's the point? ɱ (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: no, it's not, the biggest problem here has always been the 'panoramas', which are mostly just huge regular-proportioned images. Please reduce to about 220px. ɱ (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That's preposterous. Look at Boston, San Francisco, Houston, etc. Why would you make a cityscape (or equivalent boroughscape) 220px? Standards evolve, I'm not sure you identify with that concept. Castncoot (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

With both Boston and SF, when they became FAs and when they underwent FA reviews, they didn't have those giant panos. Clearly some editor like you added them in at one point and they stuck, but they'd never pass an FA today with that. ɱ (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, look, it was you! Just slipped through the cracks for a couple years, as things on Wikipedia almost always do. These hoaxes mostly lasted longer. I guess it's time to discuss reducing/removing those too, now. ɱ (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not true Ɱ, get your facts straight, please. San Francisco and Houston I was not involved in, period. In Boston's page, I participated but have found support among other editors, also including those who could not simply miss prominent panoramas; and if the Boston panoramas have stuck for over three years, doesn't that tell you something (other than your mistaken impression that most editors are sheep)? Castncoot (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: File:Flushing Queens May 2015 2.jpg is a bad photo and doesn't need to be 800 pixels wide in its own private section (or a section with two other similar photos). I can understand including a skyline panorama in a city article, if its relevant for illustrating the text of the section its used in. But File:Flushing Queens May 2015 2.jpg is not a panorama or a skyline, its 4:3, and mostly shows an empty plaza with, and let me be tactful, a gentleman napping on the stairs. The intersection behind that isn't even particularly busy, which is what the caption claims it to be. This is a busy intersection. But most of all, I want to stop seeing the rationale of keeping content because its "been there longstandingly". Per WP:CONTENTAGE, "if some material is not suitable for Wikipedia by current standards, it will be deleted or corrected, regardless of how old it is." Thanks!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, you made your case beautifully, Patrick, I really cannot argue with any of your points. Why don't we then put up a different (or the same) Long Island City picture back up as a single borough skyline image? Castncoot (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I added File:Long Island City New York May 2015 panorama 3.jpg in the Economy section, where Long Island City is mentioned in the text as the site of several corporate headquarters. I don't think it needs the whole Template:Wide image though, its not a panorama either, its just a cropped 2:1 image, there's no photos stitched together.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I was referring to, but for now I suppose it will have to remain as a sectional placeholder under Economy since it is not a true panorama. Would it be possible at all for someone to procure an updated panoramic image of Long Island City and/or Downtown Flushing in order to compose a central Borough scape(s) section...? Two good editors who come to mind might be User:Jleon and User:Epicgenius. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Replying to your ping here. What would you like me to take a panorama of? LIC is easy to do, but Flushing is a bit out of the way for me (opposite direction from where I usually go to school/work). epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally epicgenius, I think the Flushing image you took in 2015 was excellent, given that it's such a challenging location to shoot a still photo from. Unfortunately, others have criticized its resolution and/or lack of clearly visible crowds when the caption labels it as the busy intersection that it truly is. I'm thinking that a pano of the same intersection as well as of LIC would both be excellent, as 1) they would remove the critics' objections stated above, 2) they would become true panoramas that could do justice to a Boroughscape section for Queens as with Cityscape sections, and 3) both of those locations have changed significantly anyway (even since 2015!) due to their rapid transformations, and this would give us a chance to update them. Whatever panos you can take and upload as boroughcapes would be helpful, given that Queens is so underpictorialized on Wikipedia for its population, importance, and overall notability. Thank you and best, Castncoot (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: That sounds great. For Flushing it might be difficult to create a panorama (probably impossible for me to do at rush hour since it's pretty far from where I need to go, but it's doable if it's midday). For LIC, what kind of view do you want? There are a few places that are rapidly developing that I can take pictures of, like Queens Plaza, but the more specific the better. I generally want to stick to locations along the 7 train if possible due to the limited amount of time I can take out of my day. epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise to you...but what do you think about getting a pano from Roosevelt Island, panning from the Newton Creek that separates Brooklyn and Queens, all the way up to the Triboro Bridge, where the East River becomes the Harlem River? I certainly don't want you to interfere with your busy schedule...I don't think there's any kind of urgency here. But it certainly would be nice to get this at some point in the near future! Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There aren't that many places that fit these criteria. I'll have to do some research on where the best place is for that kind of panorama. Even at the Roosevelt Island Tramway stop (which is midway between the Triboro Bridge and Newtown Creek), it's hard to see past the Roosevelt Island Bridge. epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good thanks, looking forward to the finished product! Maybe an aerial picture from the tram itself? Whatever you procure I'm sure will undoubtedly be notable. Castncoot (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius - may I ask how this is progressing? Castncoot (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: It may be a while longer, as I am still busy. I've been able to make it as far as Central Park during my free time, though. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That's funny. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Boroughscape pano

Hi Epicgenius, hope you're doing well. How has your time availability been with regards to procuring a panorama of the Queens waterfront? The article is still missing a boroughscape pano. I had suggested perhaps getting an aerial take from the Roosevelt Island Tramway itself, spanning the entire borough waterfront from Newtown Creek to the Triborough Bridge. You had mentioned that your schedule has been extremely hectic and that it could take time. Are you still in status quo with availability? I thought we should also bring MusikAnimal into the discussion to see if they might be able to help as well. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Yeah, my availability is still the same. Currently I'm taking finals at my college so I pretty much have even less time to take pictures. I think we may want to ping other editors as well, like Jim.henderson (who takes very good pictures of a variety of NYC topics, in my opinion) and King of Hearts (who has a featured picture already of Long Island City as well as many quality pictures of NYC topics on Commons) for their feedback. I'll probably go over there anyway to take the pictures myself once my finals are complete. epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to help, but I'm afraid what you're proposing is not realistic. The tramway moves too fast to allow a decent stitched pano, and in any case the cables will be in the way. For anything taken from the ground the Queensboro Bridge will be in the way. A genuinely aerial photo is beyond most of our capabilities. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

King of Hearts, Epicgenius: what do you folks think of simply getting an updated pano of the skyline of Long Island City for a boroughscape photo? Castncoot (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: I guess, since LIC has changed a lot since 2015, but I would not be able to create a good quality photo, since my camera is low resolution. epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

King of Hearts, would you be able and available to update your LIC pano for an updated boroughscape picture? Castncoot (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think the LIC skyline has changed all that much, at least from my vantage point; compare this Google Street View panorama from Apr 2019. The place I shot from is going to give the most aesthetic result, but it misses out on key buildings further back like the Citi Building (which you can barely make out in the Google image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

King of Hearts, Epicgenius: Then are you folks suggesting that we put the same picture from 2015 back up? I never understood why it was taken down in the first place, when it's an excellent picture. Castncoot (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. All three boroughscapes in the previous version are not wide enough to be suitable for a full-width spread as blowing them up would make them too tall; they are better used as inline thumbs. Ideally any full-width picture in a cityscape section should be at least 3 times as wide as it is tall, preferably 4 or more. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I see, so what would you propose, King of Hearts? Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Something like this could work, showing the two skylines of LIC at the same time. It might be some time before I get around to it, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That looks terrific. Castncoot (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi King of Hearts, hope you're doing well. May I ask if you've had a chance to work on this and what your plans may be? Best, Castncoot (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I really don't know when I'll have the time to stop by that place. There is WP:NODEADLINE and all I can say is, it'll be ready when it's ready. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of claim of "organized prostitution"

In this edit, the claim that the Flushing Chinatown has also become the epicenter of organized prostitution in the United States was removed. I agree that it doesn't really belong here, and have moved it to the Chinatowns in Queens page. (Also, the link is a dead link, so I fixed it.) epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: a good map showing the neighborhoods of Queens. It's ridiculous that there is not already one in this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

John Jay Coll. is not in Queens

As far as I know, John Jay College of Criminal Justice is in Manhattan, and not in Queens. The John Jay article says as much. This should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.131.51.27 (talk • contribs)

Uuuh.

I'm not registered in the English Wikipedia, so I'd be glad if someone took care of it - "they like to lick dogs"? It's at the end of the second paragraph. Quite hilarious, I admit, but still...

Wow.

It disappeared 2 seconds after I posted my comment. Wow.

Culture

Not much is said about the culture in Queens and under it, it says culture of New york city and not too much is mention their about queens either. Queens has several parades in Flushing Meadwows park such as the Colombian day festivl held in mid July. The Ecuadorian parade held in august in and/or around Flushing Meadows park. Something about Run Dmc seing how Afrika Bambaata is included in The Bronx. If any one could improve this section please do.

Queens is also home to the one and only Christian E. Piña?

What is a Christian E. Piña (brother of Caroline Piña) and why is it significant enough to go in the first paragraph?

Queens County?

Seems like the first paragraph should be modified so as not to introduce Queens as Queens County but rather as Queens, one of the five boroughs of New York City, coterminous with Queens County. This would strengthen the consistency among the five individual articles about the boroughs. Plus, "Queens" is not simply a shortening of the county name, as the current wording suggests; it is the name of the borough. If colloquial shortening were the true root of the borough names, then Brooklyn would be known simply as "Kings" and Staten Island would be called "Richmond." Conisder revising for logic.

Urbanness

The borough is often considered one of the more suburban boroughs of New York City. Queens urbanness is about 99% correlated to is proximity to lower manhattan (just as brooklyn). I mean really the closer to lower manhattan it is the more urban it is... The only exception would be Flushing and Jamaica.