This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
WP:SIZERULE 100 kB (15,000 words) Almost certainly should be divided
This article is already very long and has exceeded 400 kb, way beyond what is recommended in WP:LENGTH. I suggest that we make a great summary of the content. What do you think? Chronus (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Length and imagery accessibility problems have been brought up many times to no avail to the detriment of our readers. Will simply be reverted or down the line will be reinstated with the meaningless edit summary "clr". Moxy- 03:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I think Castncoot is correct in their assessment. It's a long article because it's a very detailed subject with a lot of outside documentation and daughter articles that deserves coverage. In other words, this is already the short version. oknazevad (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Nor sure how ignoring multiple recommendations by the community will help here.....As per WP:SUMMARY#Article size would be best to make the article accessible.Moxy- 11:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Long would be 1.2 Megabytes. This is one-third that length. If you really feel that other cities' articles need to be longer, then go ahead and make them longer. There are already zillions of forks to daughter articles here. And with NYC's superlative hypercomplexity of all cities, as oknazevad mentioned, this is the shortened, truncated version. People simply need to accept that fact. Castncoot (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't find any unusual accessibility or loading latency problems on either mobile or desktop here. The new configuration of Wikipedia actually makes it especially fast and easy to just tap down to a particular section. There's no requirement that a reader has to finish the whole article from top to bottom in 5 minutes. Castncoot (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Length is judged according to readable prose size, not raw bytes; by that measure this is one of the longest city articles out there, and it's this one that needs to shrink rather than others that need to grow. There is no requirement that a reader should finish the whole article in 5 minutes, but at its current length this article would take the average reader over an hour - a length that is overwhelming and inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I should hope more cities of global importance have articles like this one. ɱ(talk) 16:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Ideally, one should be able to read an article at one sitting; this is far too long. And besides being significantly longer than London, Paris and Tokyo, its size greatly exceeds that of other important topics such as the United States, Earth, the Solar System, Islam, Christianity, World War II, Life and Wikipedia (not that some of those articles would suffer from appropriate trimming.
And who's going to read all that stuff about New York City's climate ?; certainly valuable in its own article but all that detail would not interest the average reader. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Those topics certainly could be fleshed out to this level as well, but New York City perhaps has a wider array and higher density of important topics and superlatives that cannot be generalized, more than some of the above topics. Climate can be condensed. ɱ(talk) 18:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: You yourself agreed in the above section that the infobox photo montage has too many photos. There is absolutely no need to keep 13 images (!!!) in an article's infobox. This makes no sense either in terms of aesthetics or accessibility. @Shakescene and Ɱ: There are many other sections besides the one on the climate which could have been much shorter in content, such as sports, transports, environment, boroughs, etc. Furthermore, the introductory text is too long and disrespect MOS:LEADLENGTH. The last two paragraphs are totally unnecessary for an introduction. Other cities like Paris, London, Shanghai, Tokyo, Mexico City, São Paulo, are as big and complex as New York and do not even have articles with more than 400 kb. We need to respect WP:TOOBIG and move the content to articles about specific subjects related to the city. Chronus (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, none of those cities has the same complexity as New York, even in the total numerical availability of reliable sources. (Just google each city and you will see that, informally of course.) So maybe we need to look at shrinking down Mexico City's and Sao Paulo's article lengths to one-tenth of New York's before trying to irrationally sabotage this article. And city articles naturally lend themselves to more complexity and length than much broader topics including nations, religions, and in the extreme, water. Castncoot (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: I copied and pasted this page (without the footnote refernces) to WordPerfect (without images) and Microsoft Word (with images). The former was 59 pages long and the latter 78 pages. Perhaps some readers will be able to plough through all that at one comfortable sitting, but I’m not one of them. And if you think that New York City is more important and more diverse than the United States, I would have to differ. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: You say these cities are "not as complex as New York" based on what? Your personal opinion? Is there any "complexity ranking" that shows this? Otherwise, just read WP:SIZERULE instead of making excuses to break the project's policies. Chronus (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I think Castncoot is referring to political, ethnic, religious, etc. diversity when accounting for the small amount of square miles here. Compared to Paris or the United States, New York City is vastly more dense in many of these respects. ɱ(talk) 13:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
We're not a history book or novel. We're not supposed to be engaging throughout the whole text, we're supposed to compile all the facts and present them neutrally. Nobody needs to read an entire Wikipedia article from beginning to end. We have TOCs front-and-center for a reason. ɱ(talk) 18:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot @Ɱ @Chronus @Moxy While I think that density should not by itself justify a longer article than United States, I'd like to note that San Francisco (268k) — which is just as diverse ethnically — at 48 square miles — has less than one-sixth the area of NYC (300 sq. mi.) I don't know how much of NYC's diversity is within the 24 square miles of Manhattan (about twice the overnight resident population in half the land area), but that argument would apply better to Manhattan than to NYC as a whole. ¶ By the way Castncoot has been doing exemplary recent work editing San Francisco. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Density of diversity is only one small element. This city is leading the global stage on many accounts, and among the most complex in many ways, for such a small geographic area. Transit is an easy example-largest subway system on Earth by station count, many transit methods, long/convoluted transit history, many innovations, many disasters, many criticisms. Summarizing that alone adequately in one paragraph is simply impossible. ɱ(talk) 18:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Stop with these curt little comebacks, where at that article is the behemoth of public transit summarized adequately in one paragraph? We have a duty to summarize complex subjects adequately at New York City. ɱ(talk) 18:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:DETAIL "The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details. Breakout methods should anticipate the various levels of detail that typical readers will look for."Moxy- 19:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see how the details of New York City are more important than those of the U.S. as a whole — which by definition would include all the complexity of NYC, as well as much, much more, e.g. a vast and dramatically contrasting climate. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Nobody said "more important". Read again please, I don't want to keep repeating myself... ɱ(talk) 20:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, then, (and I certainly want to avoid getting anywhere near a nasty personal quarrel and always try to assume good faith) I really don't understand your meaning, and its implications, when you wrote:
I think Castncoot is referring to political, ethnic, religious, etc. diversity when accounting for the small amount of square miles here. Compared to Paris or the United States, New York City is vastly more dense in many of these respects.
If it's much stuff packed into a small space, why is this stuff less important in an article about the United States? Would it be somehow less important, and thus deserving of less treatment, if New York City had the area of Houston or Los Angeles County? —— Shakescene (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
What differs is that larger entities like counties and states don't (and don't need to) detail too many cultural aspects of cities, and similar entities like other US cities have far less of the insane complexity in their culture, operations, demographics, and other aspects. ɱ(talk) 03:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Ɱ just hit the nail spot on the head. @Shakescene: 1) Please compare city articles only to other city articles, and not to articles about states, countries, planets, or galaxies. Each is an entirely different beast from the others, each category having its own nuances and perspectives. 2) Up to 800 languages are spoken in New York City, likely higher than the combined total of Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston. 3) Just look at the pageview statistics regarding the NYC Wikipedia page versus the Wikipedia page of any other city in the world; roughly 20,000 people read this page daily on average, no other city page rivals that viewership. That fact is no coincidence and it speaks volumes about the complexity of New York City, which then need to be obligatorily mentioned on this page. 4) For people complaining about a supposed lack of forks to daughter articles on this page, all I can say to that is that unfortunately you don't know what you're talking about. Castncoot (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Yup vast amount of views..... thus the article should be an example of what to strive for not the example of what not to do. the community makes our standards and protocols for a reason. Moxy- 05:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Most readers don't also edit. You can't squeeze every single square peg into one same round hole. Occasionally a square peg is going to be inherently too big for that same round hole and therefore needs a bigger round hole (or just a square hole). I think most people are logical enough to understand that. Castncoot (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Why NYC needs to be a special snowflake? In many aspect London is more significant than NYC, because London existed since the Roman times. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll be the first one to agree that London should be entitled to a much, much longer History section than New York on its title page. Beyond that however, and especially since Brexit, London appears to be spiraling downward in significance, but I would totally support any effort by the London page editors to extend the length of that article as they may see to be relevant and reliably sourced. Castncoot (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The argument that NYC is too complex in comparison to many subjects is not only nonsense on its face, it does not even begin to support having one extremely long article. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, complex subjects require editors to adhere even more closely and carefully to encyclopedic summarization because we are writing for a general audience of a general encyclopedia, and we break out detail into daughter articles in service of readability, accessibility, and readers differing inclinations and interests. So, if anything, three times over this supposed 'complex' argument means we need tighten up this article, write this article better with tighter prose, and make it shorter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Much, much easier said than done. I don't support moving important details to sub-articles solely on the basis of page size. Climate details are an obvious target for something that can be moved... ɱ(talk) 14:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Moving important details to sub-articles solely on the basis of total page size is not only nonsense on its face, but it's already been a constant exercise all along de facto, with efficiency at the forefront in mind by leading editors of this page including myself who are sensitive about the length of the page—such that so much content has either been cut entirely, skipped being added, or forked to daughter articles, that we're close to bone now. Castncoot (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This is something that @Castncoot has repeatingly used to deflect attempts at improving the article, by reverting these edits and only approve contributions that they saw fit. See the talk page archive and edit history if you want proof. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Ethnicity could best be shown by a table
Looking at the race & ethnicity sections, it seems fairly clear to me that more information could be more usefully conveyed by a table, rather than through individual sentences. I wouldn't want to write out Norwegian- & Swedish-American New Yorkers, or Little Senegal but general readers will find them far more easily scanning a table rather than individual sentences including a number or percentage.
You'd still need text to accompany a table, but the most salient facts that would inform a general reader could probably fit into 4-6 long paragraphs or 8-10 short ones.
Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find a recent, reliably-sourced table to copy from. The Census Bureau web-site has been far to difficult for me to navigate smoothly since the retirement of American Fact Finder, and most of the other sources (including the Census's) only show the broad racial groups, such as Hispanic or Latino Alone, rather than [for example] the number of Dominican-American New Yorkers compared to the number of Arab-American New Yorkers.
The best I could find was this cloud cluster on Wikimedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City#/media/File:Ethnic_Origins_in_New_York_City.png
which might be a useful illustration but couldn't easily replace a numerical table. Any ideas? @Rjensen:@Beyond My Ken:, @Castncoot:,@Moxy:, @Chronus:, @Ɱ:, @Oknazevad:—— Shakescene (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I at least appreciate the effort to address specific potential changes here, rather than just broadly complaining, as many users are above. Why not create Religion in New York City as well? All other large sections here appear to have general sub-articles. ɱ(talk) 15:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
When more languages are likely spoken in New York City than London and Paris combined, or Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, and Shanghai combined, or Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Santiago, and Mexico City combined, or Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston combined, and so forth, Demographics may not be the one to approach first, if at all. The one section I can possibly fathom cutting would be History, a massive section most of which I might add had already been written by others before myself. Castncoot (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
My initial impression (see above) was that the History section was too long, but on measuring it, I found it took up only 25kB out of 400+. It could still be too long, particularly for someone trying to get a general grasp of NYC history as part of one sitting, and thus wouldn't suffer from a little judicious trimming. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Climate charts and text
But by itself, History not the principal contributor to this article's size. It might very well be that the lemgth comes from small additions (year by year) to many sections of this article. Climate didn't take up as much space as I'd thought, but unless you're a weather buff (who should not be mocked, since their fascination drives them to Penn State and then to give useful necessary forecasts on our local news) it's very tedious to plough through all those details (the coldest January, the mean April, etc.) And that gigantic chart has to go, perhaps in favor of something smaller, simpler and paradoxically more informative. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, climate chart deleted, even though many other U.S. cities contain it. The climate tables cannot come down though, those are common to all U.S. city articles, including means, records, precipitation, and with major cities' articles also containing sunshine hours, percentage sunshine, etc. Incidentally, I happen to relish weather and climate statistics, and many, many others do as well. Please neither underestimate our readers' intelligence nor feel the need to dumb down the article. Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Good call on removal ...."As prose text is preferred overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS." Moxy- 13:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Except that Shakescene wisely restored my reluctant deletion of the climate chart (distinct from climate table). Also hoping to fix a disconnect here – you do realize that a full and thorough climate table is part of every city's page in all of Wikipedia, right? And the major cities' tables carry even more detail. To remove a climate table off a city main page would be the equivalent of an 8.0 earthquake on Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Need to look at what there is....most cities dont have sub articles like Climate of New York City.Moxy- 15:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
But many cities do have a separate climate article, and nevertheless the big table appears on both the cities' main page as well as the climate sub-page. It would have to become a WikiProject with consensus to remove the big climate table from the main page of all such cities across Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Only the small chart, which actually tells me something, was removed, so I restored it. What has to go is the giant technical chart which rightfully belongs in Climate of New York City.
Compare the small charts I created from Fortune's 500 list for this New York City article, with the much more extensive ones for Economy of New York State at my sandbox:
(I'm still updating those charts to reflect 2022 numbers in the most-recent issue of Fortune. When someone removed the small chart from New York City#Wall Street, I didn't restore it because it was getting stale.)
As for all those gaudy over-detailed charts plastered over other cities' pages, they should all be sent to those cities' sub-articles on Climate of ... because unlike the small climate chart that I restored, they're far too detailed for the general reader to grasp. Too many details (as with my larger Fortune chart) actually mean you'll convey less information to most readers. TL;DR
Although I'm probably not the best person to do this (especially since I haven't visited the City in twenty years), the accompanying text should answer simple basic questions like the coldest winter vs the average one, humid summers, wind tunnels along heavily-built streets and notable meteorological events such as heat waves, hurricanes and floods.
One approach that could satisfy a general reader would be short paragraphs or sus-sub-section on Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall/Autumn. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Since the big chart has a [hide] button, perhaps we could make Collapse the default and Expand (or unhide) the option. This wouldn't cut the total kB in the History, etc., with all the associated technical difficulties, but it could add to readablity without losing data.
I tried fiddling with this by myself, but lack the necessary skill and memory. Look at the collapsed ancestry tables at Descendants of Queen Victoria, whose default was once Show (uncollapse) until I and other editors of that page said the uncollapsed ancestry boxes made the while (very-long-already) page unreadable and nearly unusable. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Best not to make a mess of a currently reasonable article, if not necessarily perfect. Castncoot (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
It is a mess now, at least to my eyes, and I presume many others'. And most of the contributors to this talk page don't consider the current page "reasonable". —— Shakescene (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
If you haven't visited NYC in the past twenty years, over which time period the city's complexity has soared, then perhaps you should update your topic experience with a re-visit and a fresh pair of eyes. Although Wikipedia does not require editors to have any topic experience, it unequivocally makes for a more authentic article. Castncoot (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
If I might put my two cents' worth in the discussion, this is condensed—even for New York City. The article suffers the same fate as the city in actuality, being a cursed sardine. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Oknazevad and Castncoot. — Let's keep in mind that most readers only read the lede, and perhaps one or more sections of interest, for which we have a Table of Contents. As stated above, "There's no requirement that a reader has to finish the whole article" in one sitting. In any case, well sourced content should not be removed just for the sake of obtaining a page length number. While there is always room for improvement, even with award winning works, the article is overall well written and well sourced. We should have more than complaints about a page length number before someone starts taking an edit-axe to the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with both of you. Anyone with any reasonable topic experience about New York City knows well that this article is condensed like a can of sardines. The only way to decompress it might be for all of us active editors not to be so stingy with every single bit and byte of thought content and word usage. Castncoot (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Anyone who's read the article can see that it feels cramped because there's a bunch of stuff in it that really doesn't need to be there. I mean, architectural details about a single bridge? Who names the ferries? Really? Additionally it demonstrates some of the maintenance problems that arise with very long articles - content lacking citations or failing verification, content that is massively out of date, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Please explain what "topic experience" you feel is required to justify explaining exactly what types of stone are used in the Brooklyn Bridge in an article on NYC broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
References
^Fortune 500 website and Fortune, Volume 163, Number 7 (May 23, 2011), page F-45
"has been characterized as such by sources from as far across the globe as Australia"
@Castncoot: You have cited this claim to a library catalogue record for a book published in New York that happens to be held by an Australian library. Such a broad statement is really not an appropriate interpretation; at best you could say libraries as far away as Australia hold sources about NYC. Nikkimaria (talk)
But none of those cities are described as the cultural capital of the world, which is the main point, and that's overtly obvious. Castncoot (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The NLA happens to hold a book from New York with that title. Why do you feel that's important enough to warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
That's actually needed and was placed quite a number of years ago with fair agreement in order to appease the crowd who had brought up the idea that a citation needed to be added that this wasn't boosterism farmed and confined locally by New York institutions. Castncoot (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
If that's what is desired, then a different source is needed. The fact that the NLA holds this title from New York doesn't prove that at all. As already noted, the NLA holds any number of local-interest works from the US, some much more niche than this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement truncated and refs added. Castncoot (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Too many images in history section
With the full width site of Wikipedia on a 15 inch screen, the images on the history section push all the way down into geography. Some images should be placed to left or cut out altogether. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't go into other sections for me, or for the average screen, or with the new skin. So for 99.9% of readers, it's fine. We can't cater to everyone, and certainly not 30-inch-wide screens. Where do you draw the line? Set your width narrower. ɱ(talk) 20:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@TheLionHasSeen: talked about a 15-inch screen, not a 30-inch one. And I don't have this problem on my desktop screen. However,
a large proportion of users read Wikipedia on cell phones and other hand-held devices, which could only make such a problem worse, and
Wikipedia already makes all kinds of accommodation (often mystifyingly technical and obscure to an ordinary editor) for the small proportion of users who use screen readers under the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. So parallel format problems for other users shouldn't be dismissed too readily. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
So, should we at least remove a plethora of images anyways, since the history section contains too many anyways? Those images would be better off fully-inclusive on the History of New York City article...being the primary article is supposed to be condensed anyways. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This just looks hilariously bad and confusing. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
You're missing my point. 30 is meant as an exaggeration. That screenshot looks ridiculous too. We simply can't cater to any type of screen. If I have a 40-inch-wide screen simply every article would look poorly-formatted with this old skin. Luckily Wikimedia made a fix and made a fixed width skin default for readers. Update your skin. This is not our problem, it's yours. ɱ(talk) 14:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Your logic is just as tragic as this argument. I am using the updated skin which they forced on everyone. So, you are the one with a problem. Might I go further? TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The updated skin has a fixed content width. So unless you found some way out of that, you aren't. ɱ(talk) 15:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
"Enable limited width mode" is by-default enabled. So 99.9% of readers view this page at a fixed width. We simply cannot format the page to look beautiful for 8" screens as well as 30". There's absolutely no way. So Wikimedia has all readers view it at one width. It should look good at that width and similar sizes. And it does. ɱ(talk) 15:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Very simple rule of thumb is one image per 3 normal lenght paragraphs. Having less accessibility problems is easy an easy fix....simply remove some images. Moxy- 16:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Whose rule of thumb? You can make up whatever 'rules' to support your arguments, but the plain fact is that this user who has deliberately opted to manipulate their view here to display extra-wide is complaining it then looks bad. Like, duh, if you stretch something too wide it'll look bad, it's a problem you created. Virtually every reader will not have this problem. ɱ(talk) 16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This has come up many times by many different readers. Not sure how you can claim otherwise.... talk histories clear. Moxy- 21:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that there are too many images in the history section. Maybe we could remove one or two, but most of them are important to illustrate the text where it is inserted. Furthermore, on my monitor there is also no problem with the layout or invasion of images in other sections of the article, as shown in this print which, in my opinion, is exaggerated. Chronus (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
LGBT section
@Castncoot: "Stop screwing around with this picture"? Do you think I'm on this project to "screwing around"? What's the need to keep six images (!) in a small section like "Sexual orientation and gender identity" amid so many discussions about the size of this article? Any minimal attempt to reduce the size of this article and the exaggerated number of images that some sections have is completely reversed. This is exhausting and goes against the principles of any collaborative project. Chronus (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
There are nine images in the Race and ethnicity subsection, about the same ratio of images per text as this section. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and the basic point arrived at is that sometimes it is indeed too pertinent to move the weight in favor of images depending upon the complexity of the subject. What you might want to do rather than cutting a few very pertinent pictures would be to go through the article and change the reference citation formats and you may be able to reduce the article by 50-75K bytes. Trying to cut out notable images here amounts to penny-wise and pound-foolish action.Castncoot (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's no reason that exists to keep these images. Seasider53 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: I also think that the nine images in the "Race and ethnicity" section should be scaled down in quantity if that is your "argument". The "Sexuality and gender identity" section is only three paragraphs long, but has six images. I repeat, six images. What is the real relevance of this? How does this help the reader of the article? Furthermore, how can an image of a random manifestation of BDSM be a "notable image" and "pertinent picture"? Is this serious? Please stop behaving like the owner of this article, you don't have that right. And treat my edits with a minimum of respect. I am not "penny-wise and pound-foolish" and I am not "screwing around" for trying to follow basic policies like MOS:ACCIM, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and WP:SIZERULE. Finally, yes the size of the article has already been discussed ad nauseam and yet you insist on keeping this page at this totally unnecessary size. This needs to stop. Chronus (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Both sections would benefit from having fewer images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Drop cluster of images that aren't seen on mobile versions.... to a few high quality images that can be seen by all. Good luck. Moxy- 02:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
User:Chronus, you've just invalidated your entire argument in one fell swoop. Why? Because now you're guilty of WP:CANVASSING, by inviting specific editors to the forum who you suspected would align themselves with your POV to at least some degree. This is a form of WP:MEATPUPPETRY, an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy, second only to WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. This talk page naturally beckons to people from all across the Wikisphere and needs no invitation to comment. In one fell swoop, not only have you lost any level of credibility and neutrality as an editor, but you have also single-handedly tarnished the legitimacy of all of the editors you have summoned with regards to this particular thread. I believe that your Wikipedia privileges will need to be re-assessed. On top of this egregious behavior, you clearly have no intention of contributing more than an extremely rare edit summary, in order to obfuscate your edits. And how did you know that my edit summary about your "screwing around with this picture" pertained to you, when I didn't even mention your name in the edit summary? At least one other editor very recently asked you in the edit summary to stop gutting thousands of bytes unilaterally when these issues had already been discussed ad nauseum. And btw, stop trying to shove your own personal morality standards down Wikipedia's throat. Castncoot (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot Oh please! I just called out the same editors who participated in the discussions above and which I even disagreed with in the debate just above of this one. BTW, accusing me of something this serious is simply casting aspersions. So all the other editors who participated in this discussion "lost the legitimacy"? Are you the only one who have the "legitimacy" to edit this article right now? Your personal attacks on me only speak against you. And how did I will not know that your edit summary about "screwing around with this picture" referred to me if it was me who moved this exact photo to the place the section you didn't like? It doesn't take a genius to come to that conclusion. Finally, my issue with the useless BDSM photo has absolutely nothing to do with "personal morality". It has to do, in fact, with encyclopedic relevance. BDSM isn't even mentioned anywhere in the section's text for a photo of this theme to be necessary. Chronus (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh and about "gutting thousands of bytes unilaterally" I recommend reading MOS:LEADLENGTH. Chronus (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:CANVASSING by any other name is still WP:CANVASSING. Your mastery of the English language is subpar, and maybe you should confine yourself to the Portuguese Wikipedia where you can prop up Sao Paulo all you want, although never mind, as WP:CANVASSING is illegal there as well. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that you've been after the LGBT section of this article for a while now and have had your bull's eye both on the collage and moving an important piece of NYC history as pertains to having impacted the entire world out of the history section. I don't believe you should be able to maintain unrestricted rights on English Wikipedia (or Portuguese Wikipedia) any longer. Castncoot (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot Invite editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) is an appropriate notification. Beside, your accusations that I've been "after the LGBT section" are completely absurd. I am gay myself and my edits have never, on any Wikimedia project, had or will ever have anti-LGBT bias. This is yet another personal attack and a very serious accusation in clear disrespect for what says WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL. Finally, you are not the one who defines where or what I can edit about. Please control yourself. Chronus (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Your own sexual orientation is none of anybody's business and is irrelevant to this discussion. Bias is bias. I call it as it is. Castncoot (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot My sexual orientation became relevant in the discussion when I was accused of anti-LGBT bias even though I am a member of the LGBT community. BTW, call it as "respect to MOS:LEADLENGTH". Chronus (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
If you really "don't believe [someone] should be able to maintain unrestricted rights on English Wikipedia", you'll need to take that to WP:ANI. Both of you should focus conversation here instead on the content question. This isn't the place to trade insults or accusations.
On that note, Castncoot, what is your rationale for including this number of images in sections of this size? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
In one short answer: New York's complexity. Castncoot (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Chronus, please don't canvass anymore. Why don't you go ahead and delete two of the six images of your choice, and then let's move on from there to other (more meaningful) ways of controlling the growth of the article – namely, you can consider starting from top to bottom and shortening the ref citations themselves. That will trim many bytes. I don't have any problem with the length of this article when Wikipedia's longest article is three times the size. It's entirely a non-issue to me. Castncoot (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Don't worry. I don't intend to edit this article any time soon. This debate has gone too far and you have offended me on different levels. I think I took enough. Goodnight. Chronus (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't stay away too long, Chronus. We need your excellent photo-editing skills here. Castncoot (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot I don't need your sarcasm at this stage of the season. This is a form of disruptive behavior. Please stop. Chronus (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I am just now seeing this, but @User:Chronus if you desire to report them on the administrators noticeboard for this demeaning of you, and even calling those of us meatpuppets—an insult of great proprtions to someone such as I with a track-record of assisting in sockpuppet investigations—I will offer supporting commentary against this contributor's harassment here. If you do not, I'll report them myself to the administrator's noticeboard. As for the images, the history and demography sections are littered with imagery, and they definitely have to go. We can see this by the plethora of discussions here, with someone acting as if they are the sole article owner/protector of a Wikipedia article. This will not stand anymore, and the sarcastic bullying will not go unnoticed. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@TheLionHasSeen: Thank you very much for your support. The attacks I suffered throughout this discussion are inadmissible. This needs to stop. Chronus (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Let me know if or when you start the report. The sooner the better if you do. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There was neither sarcasm nor bullying intended. The exchange became heated, and then I really felt bad that User:Chronus felt bad and I was then trying to welcome them back. Apparently my attempt to do so fell flat. In any case, I'm glad that Chronus is back. And please, don't accuse me of sarcasm. Nobody owns the article, even if I have made the most edits here. Please WP:AGF and understand that there are two sides to every story, User:TheLionHasSeen. Castncoot (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for clarifying in this response. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot @TheLionHasSeen I will understand this message as an apology and that is accepted. Let's move on. Chronus (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, I love to see this dispute resolution. This type of resolution is rarely seen these days on Wikipedia. I commend both of you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both! Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Please shorten this article. I was writing a 8th grade research project and I can't read all of it!!! KdeSilva2103 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
by 9th grade you will be able to finish it. Rjensen (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Is NYC a glamour capital? yes say the reliable sources
The city is the birthplace of historic cultural movements, including the Harlem Renaissance in literature and visual art; abstract expressionism in painting; and hip hop, punk, salsa, freestyle, Tin Pan Alley, certain forms of jazz, and disco in music; The city is also frequently the setting for novels, movies, and television programs-- it is the centerpiece of New Years Eve celebrations on every TV set in USA. And for research evidence see : "New York Tops List of ‘Most Glamorous’ U.S. Cities --Researchers at LawnStarter looked at 39 metrics to compile the ranking." see Feb 2023 news report. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Did you really bother to create this in response to my edit? It's very suspect that you are the person who added that word in the first place.
Anyway, all the criteria you mentioned is covered by "media centre", "entertainment centre", and "cultural centre" etc. No one recognizes glamour centre as a thing. If they did, there would be a link to its article on Wikipedia, but there isn't. LivinAWestLife (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree. (1) I've never heard of Lawn Starter; is it a reliable source (quoted second-hand)?
(2) Glamour can only be taken in relation to something, e.g Swinging London or the City of Light. Among U.S. cities, Hollywood is the undoubted leader in terms of film, television and gossip.
(3) See my catalogue of the lede's piling-on of 19-20 superlatives in this earlier discussion:
The glamour/glamor sphere has changed since 20 years ago. It used to be Hollywood back then, but the center of glamor gravity has since shifted to New York City. The current actors' and writers' strikes certainly won't help to bring glamour back to Hollywood. More saliently though, the sentence as phrased is correct. Castncoot (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I also agree. "[A]ccording to a study done by LawnStarter, the online landscape booking platform" is not a reason to put anything in an encyclopedia article, much less the lead. NY can be objectively measured as, and is widely known and sourced as, a financial center, entertainment center, etc., but the article can't be taken completely seriously with all the unnecessarily excessive boosterism. Station1 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a necessary component of the article and don't have a problem with it being removed, as people apparently feel it's being given WP:UNDUE weight. My point is that the statement itself has veracity and verifiability. But again, it's not a point I feel strongly about either way. Castncoot (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree that you need stronger sourcing to include "glamour" capital, if there is such a thing. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, with stronger sourcing, it really should go back in, as leaving an important detail out like that would be remiss. The statement needs to be phrased consistently with sources, that's the standard. Remember that it doesn't matter what you or I say, or who the source inside a reliable source is, but the reliability of the cited source itself. While saying it's 'the' most glamorous center, while probably true, would be undue, it is perfectly balanced to describe the city as 'a center' of glamor. Castncoot (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
As it stands, a survey by a lawncare company isn't suitable for adding an assertion like that to the lede. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
That's insulting to and a prejudiced, personal attack against lawn-care companies. Lawns produce oxygen for the world. The point is that the source is WWD, not LawnStarter. The statement as phrased is correct and consistent with the sources. Castncoot (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not. WWD is not speaking in its voice nor reporting objective facts. If we added the sentence "LawnStarter thinks New York is glamorous" to the lead, we could source that to WWD. Station1 (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The title of WWD's article is ‘New York Tops List of ‘Most Glamorous’ U.S. Cities'. By publishing an article with that strong title, Women's Wear Daily (which may be more stereotypical of embodying glamour/glamor than LawnStarter), takes at least partial ownership of that claim in its own article. Just like when we submit edits to Wikipedia, Wikipedia owns those edits, even if attribution may sometimes be required. LawnStarter is not deprecated on Wikipedia, and has nothing to gain by listing New York on top, and if anything, Women's Wear Daily is unlikely to risk its reputation by putting forth an implausible fashion/glamor claim. The statement in this article simply refers to 'a center' of glamor, which nobody would argue with, it's not claiming to be 'the center' of glamor (even though that is certainly very plausible). And finally, I've added a second source to back it up. So it's pretty tightly vetted. Castncoot (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with almost all of that. And that second source says almost the opposite of what you're claiming. It explains how "movies glamorized Manhattan", and that "New York has enjoyed a kind of fictive counterpart, a place of the imagination brought to life on screen: a 'dream city' of the movies", the implication being that glamour is not real. It refers to "the city’s glamorous upper social echelons" in contrast to the "mean streets" and "the glamorous New York of the imagination", in short a fictional city. Nowhere does it refer to NY as a "glamour center". Station1 (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I beg some editors here to define what a 'glamour' centre is or find a reputable, authoritative sources that state or use it as a measure in comparing cities. Otherwise I could just find a random article on "most beautiful cities", "most attractive cities", "most pleasant cities" and cite it as a beauty centre, attraction centre, or pleasure centre. Those are not things people who introduce and talk about cities talk about, and New York already is so important in so many other areas that this sentence is long enough. LivinAWestLife (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a conflict as stated and cited. Glamour/glamor is a far less nuanced and subjective quality than "beauty," hence the expression, "beauty is to the eye of the beholder." However, from a technicality standpoint, it meets inclusion criteria for WP:VER, which is how I'm looking at it. Castncoot (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't. Station1 (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Try looking up Glamour on Wikipedia. You'd get a disambiguation page. I think that speaks for itself. LivinAWestLife (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, when one uses the term, "center of education," what exactly does that mean? That the average resident is more educated? That there is a higher number total of educated people? That there are more educational institutions? That there are better educational institutions? That there are more high-quality educational institutions available to previously less educated people? There's a certain amount of vagueness that can't be eliminated even in more stereotypically "important" qualities, but that does not per se invalidate the WP:NOTABILITY of an attempted comparison. Castncoot (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
All these other things are measurable qualities, at least to some extent. Education is well defined, and can certainly be measured through various ways, such as the number of high-ranking research institutions or universities, or the proportion of the population with a bachelors degree. Sure there might be some vagueness to the exact definition, but ask an average person and they wouldn't know what "glamour" is or how it could be defined. All the other things in the sentence, such as dining, sports, finance etc can be objectively measured in some way, even if there are multiple ways to do so. Why are you so insistent on this one word anyway? Why not add "Chinese food centre" or "Barber centre" (since NYC undoubtedly has a lot of those) while you're at it? Those indeed can be measured by number of stores, but just because something can be added to this sentence as part of the importance of a city doesn't mean it should. There are certain categories of things cities are often ranked by and talked about. Glamour is not one of them.LivinAWestLife (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not worth including. It's just comes off as pure WP:PEACOCK and useless to understanding the importance of the city. Just ditch it. oknazevad (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
OK, we can remove it once the admin block is lifted. Castncoot (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Alright, that sounds good. LivinAWestLife (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 24 September 2023
This edit request to New York City has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The too long template should be moved above the use American English template. Maintenance, cleanup and dispute templates are above Engvar and date format templates, per MOS:ORDER. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Umm no..I was referring now to elevation, not population. (By the way, why would someone ever list the North American ranking of a U.S. city? How bizarre!) New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago are large cities by both area and population and therefore are naturally going to contain a wide diversity in elevation, and it makes zero sense to deem their elevation to be singly represented by their City Hall.) Castncoot (talk 02:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Houston and San Antonio are larger by area, as are others that don't include this detail like Jacksonville and OKC. So again, not a standard. If you think the singular elevation number is misleading, I'd support removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Houston is flat. San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver all have extremes in elevation quoted in the infobox. When it makes common sense, best to do so. There's no hard and fast policy or guideline in Wikipedia regarding US city elevation extremes in the infobox. Castncoot (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Glad we've cleared that up. I've implemented a compromise version, omitting the locations per those examples and city hall per your argument above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Castncoot (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Images
Seems it's time for another discussion, since Castncoot reverted another editor's work (using the blanket reasoning that there was consensus to… not remove them? They lost me there), even though each edit was given salient reasoning. Why do we need multiple images of the same subject, first off? Seasider53 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Real Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR problem here for years. A change can happen but only after a long talk involving many people. Moxy- 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@Moxy (talk·contribs): You've been doing this for years now. Stop. Please. just. stop. Castncoot (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
How do we proceed with this ownership line of inquiry? I'd love to assume good faith, but I fear the images that were removed will be reinstated one by one, with some inventive reasoning given, as has already begun. Could be construed as WP:SLOWEW too. Seasider53 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Re this: Can you show where exactly was consensus reached to have two photos of te Yankee stadium and two photos of the same pride parade in this article? Vanjagenije(talk) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
[1] and the corresponding period of time in the main article itself. Castncoot (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
That discussion concerns the History section. Of the images that were removed and restored, only one is from that section. What about the others? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: The discussion you cited does not contain any consensus, actually there were more users supporting removal of images than those against it. Anyway, that discussion is about the history section, and most of the images I removed are not from that section. I am going to remove those images again as the consensus for removal is now clear. Vanjagenije(talk) 18:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Wrong. The LGBT pictures and the Ethnicity pictures involved a back and forth discussion between several editors and we reached a compromise. Vanjagenije, do you know anything about New York? Or are you simply imagining that you do? Castncoot (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Do you know anything about Wikipedia's wp:policies and guidelines or you simply imagining that you do? The consensus is not what you say it is or was, the consensus can change. It's changing now. You are the only one who are opposing this removal of excessive images. The fact that you reached some "compromise" in the past (I don't see it), does not mean that has to stay forever. Vanjagenije(talk) 07:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
do you know anything about New York? Or are you simply imagining that you do? is not a valid reason for a reversion of the image removals, in case anyone thought it might be. I have removed them again and warned Castncoot on their talk page. 07:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider53 (talk • contribs)
@Castncoot: At the moment there doesn't appear to be consensus here for your blanket reversion. You assert that clearly "someone wasn't paying attention deleting images on the grounds that there was no was no text supporting when there actually was"; which specific image(s) are you referring to with that comment? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
@Chronus: Thank you for your latest edits, Chronus. I realize we've had our editorial differences, but thank you for rescuing this article. What I was witnessing before my eyes was truly frightening. Castncoot (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Several images have been returned to the article, again without discussion. Is it time to lock the article to force input from those unwilling to discuss? Seasider53 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Seasider53 I do not see any consensus for changing the status quo and I disagree with the indiscriminate removal of images that were made in the article, which caused damage to the page layout. Chronus (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
No worries; I'll open it up for outside discussion. Seasider53 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot@Moxy@Nikkimaria@Seasider53@Vanjagenije Hello. I agree that the article is too long and needs to be summarized. I myself have already made this warning in previous discussions (see here and here). In my sandbox, I made a shortened version of the article and managed to delete over 80,000 bytes of unsourced and redundant content and unnecessary images, in accordance with various Wikipedia policies, such as WP:LENGTH, WP:TOOBIG, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:VERIFY. What do you think of this version? Chronus (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I support the new version. Vanjagenije(talk) 22:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
+1. Seems like a good improvement overall - nice work. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Can we get the input of some other longtime major editors of this article, including Alansohn and Oknazevad, people who have actual topic experience on the subject? I don't feel comfortable with this kind of gutting of the article. Just because there are daughter articles does not preclude important and constructive information from being included in the main article. The Demographics section in the proposed sandbox in particular appears to be the weakest, there is no image of basketball stadiums in sports, and overall I'm not sure why even have any article at all when so many important details would be gutted throughout the article. Castncoot (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot What was removed was redundant (it was already in other parts of the same article or in articles about specific themes related to NYC) or was unsourced. Furthermore, what "important details" are these? And why are they "important"? With the version I suggested, the article would still have over 300 kB, more than articles from similar global cities, such as London, Paris, Tokyo and Shanghai. New York is not a special city and this article should also respect what WP:TOOBIG and WP:TOOMUCH says. Finally, an article of more than 300 kB is far from small and "insufficient". Chronus (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Chronus, let me first start by saying that I do know that you're operating in good faith here and are trying to help improve the article. And unlike the others here, you actually have enough legitimate New York topic experience to majorly edit this article validly. That being said, I never agreed to a drastic, 20% reduction in total volume, and this was done without proper due discussion and vetting for such a drastic change. However, because I now have confidence that you actually know what you're doing, I am happy to collaborate with you here. Although there is no policy akin to this, let me just respectfully plead that people without significant New York City topic experience please refrain from making edits over, say 1,000 bytes, at one sitting on this page, simply because you are not helping the situation. Shorter does not equate to better. Now, back to the content discussion Chronus, since we need some compromise here, I can live with most of the changes you have made, with the notable exception of the Race and Ethnicity subsection, which you gutted, and that sticks out like a sore thumb, as anyone who knows NYC well enough knows that this specific subsection is the ground root that has led to the existential essence of the city itself; and as a matter of due weight, must be the most detailed, even if the only such subsection to be as detailed. So I have respectfully added that back on. I also think the LGBTQ-related section could be re-expanded with more imaging, but I will leave that to your judgment for now. The bigger picture, fortunately, is that we both absolutely can work together to make a better article.😊 Castncoot (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot Wow! I am extremely happy with your very respectful message and that you have given up some things to reach a consensus. Likewise, I have no problem keeping the content you re-added in the race and ethnicities section. Thank you very much for recognizing my work in this article and for offering a path to a fruitful partnership. Chronus (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
We all have the ability to have the same level of knowledge about New York City. Like good artists, some of us just know when to stop tweaking and just send it. 😊 Seasider53 (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Artificial intelligence
A claim has been added to the article a few times now that NYC has a "significant influence on ... artificial intelligence". The problem with this is that it's based only on the existence of a plan for AI - this plan may or may not eventually result in this claim coming to fruition, but for the moment the claim is lacking in evidence. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
03:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree . 2601:204:C901:B740:8C71:BCF2:2A58:8BB2 (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Done * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
