Talk:New York City

There are lots of photos in this article, which makes the layout quite challenging. Would'nt it be better to make a gallery of all the photos? Or maybe a couple, in the relevant major sections? -- mikeblas (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be better to reduce the number of images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Far too many images, especially after the first third or so of the article. Do we really need a picture of a bagel? Station1 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe bagels are an integral part of New York's culture. LightningThrower (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

16 files for 4 paragraphs in the lead is a humongous accessibility nightmare.... Yes I understand most big city articles all have this problem.Moxy🍁 03:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Article should ideally start with the title of article. @Mathglot @Binksternet @This guy Dannyyy

I like This guy Dannyyy version better. It's more clear than previous version Astropulse (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's also wrong. See the talk page archives. The actual legal name of the city is simply "New York". Not "City of New York". Not "New York City". Saying it's called "New York" for short is plainly incorrect on a basic factual level. oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right. See below reply. Astropulse (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Oknazevad do you have any source for claiming official name is New York.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/section%201133_citycharter.pdf

Official name is "The city of New York" Astropulse (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Section one of the charter does not capitalize the word "city". See talk archives. That point has been discussed. oknazevad (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Can u link me the discussion plz. its difficult to search. Astropulse (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

City of New York is the official name. Per the doc. Page 1. You will see logo and "City of New York" Astropulse (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Logos are irrelevant, as they're stylized. Read the actual body text, specifically section one of the charter. It does not capitalize "city". That's the legal definition. oknazevad (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not true. Go to https://www.nyc.gov/

Scroll to bottom you will see © City of New York.

That's the official name.

https://www.britannica.com/place/New-York-City Officially: the City of New York Astropulse (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Charter clearly states "City" means the city of New York and includes an agency of the city.

Doesn't matter - its capitalized or not Astropulse (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, see Talk:New York City/Archive 19#Common name. And other talk discussions in that specific archive. oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You are WRONG. Astropulse (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like you're about to waste a lot of people's time. Reading and understanding will go a long way to helping you. Seasider53 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

So NY constitution and city charter use's the city of New York - because its not capitalized - people are claiming New York is official name.

We should refer it as such the city of New York - i think editor's opinion of New York as official name is subject to debate.

How can we claim New York as official name - when its unclear at best ? Astropulse (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

New York (state) says New York, also called New York State

New York City says New York, often called New York City (NYC)

WHAT's up with that? Astropulse (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Simple. They're both named "New York". We call this article "New York City" as a matter of natural disambiguation because it's a common alternate name, especially in the metro area and across the U.S. This has all been heavily discussed for many years. Please read the above FAQ for the history of the articles' titles.

As for the lead sentence, I strongly object to any wording that says that calling the city "New York" is somehow a short form for "New York City". It's not. That's just plain wrong. oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm new to this dispute, and it sounds like it goes way back, so maybe this comment isn't even needed if it's just a rehash of what we already know. It just seems clear to me that we need to know what term reliable sources use, so I did a couple of book searches to find out. (Teaser: they all tended strongly in one direction.) In order not to bias the search, I did not use the term 'New York'; rather, I queried largest cities in the United states to see what would come up. Here are the top five:

All of those use 'New York' when referring to the city, not 'New York City'. Because, somewhat surprisingly, there was a mix of some very old books mixed in with more recent ones in the top ten, I ran another query limiting book results to 2006–2026. Here are the top five results:

All of these book results, both without any time restriction as well as limited to post 2006, refer to the city as 'New York'. This is indicative, but not proof, and it would be good to delve deeper in books, as well as to repeat the experiment with reliable scholarly articles. But to me, this is a strong initial indicator that reliable sources use the term 'New York', and therefore so should we. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In the book "City Government in the United States" title page says

BY

ALFRED R. CONKLING

FORMERLY ALDERMAN OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

AND MEMBER OF ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

A Population History of the United States (2012) p. 82

By 1820, the premier city of New York had reached a population of 124,000 persons and numbered over a half a million by midcentury.

Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (Download PDF) and search city of New York or New York

Then you find fair user of city of New York, New York city and New York.

The bureau prepared a report for the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York on which was based the "Standards for physical examinations " published by the commission in 1916 (60 p. ) Astropulse (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Another interesting query, though not determinative, is what term do editors here use in the |location= param of the {{cite book}} template, when the book is published in New York? That is, when the string New York is part (or all) of the location param? Do users write |location=New York, or |location=New York City? The results favor 'New York' by a 10–1 margin. (Slow query, be patient; ignore timeout warning.) Admittedly, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and we can't decide this issue based on what editors do. If we wanted to spend the time and effort to do so, we could try to track all these down and see what the publishers really used as their location, and that would be good evidence from reliable sources (i.e., New York publishers) but I'm not willing to do that. But anecdotally, in my long experience finding references at Wikipedia and writing citations, publishers based in New York overwhelmingly list 'New York' as their location. If you believe that the WP editors who wrote all those thousands of cite book location params faithfully copied it from the publisher, then they are a pretty good proxy for actual publisher usage. If you believe that editors here are just abbreviating a longer term where the publisher actually uses 'New York City', then you could run the test, but I'm pretty sure you won't find that. Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

These comments come off as though they were arguing for moving the page. Which plainly is not the topic at hand, nor will such a proposal fly because this has been discussed ad nauseum. I truly advise anyone wondering why this article and the article on the state are at the titles they are to read the FAQ at the top of the talk pages and the voluminous discussions and RFCs linked therein. No one is bringing anything new to the discussion that creates a major shift in the conclusion that these are the best guideline-compliant and real-world reflective titles we can have. oknazevad (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Nowy Jork has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 15 § Nowy Jork until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Castncoot I see you have reinstated the JFK airport weatherbox. On your defense for the addition, LA and certain other cities have multiple weatherboxes because the weatherboxes either 1) show the UHI of the city (that is to say, one urban and one rural station) or 2) because the two stations have two different Köppen or Trewartha zones. By the way, many of the cities that have multiple weatherboxes on their main article don't have a city climate article, which does exist here.

Conversely, the difference between Central Park and JFK is simply the slight cooling effect of the Atlantic in summer on JFK and the slight easing of UHI in open spaces. Both stations are in the urban UHI zone and on the cooler end of the UHI zone (LaGuardia being on the warm side), and both stations compute Köppen: Cfa and Trewartha: Do. What's the goal of the second weatherbox then? What new information does it really give, other than the truism that "there are cooler and warmer places in NYC" which could license any amount of weatherboxes anywhere?

By the way, if you actually want the (admittedly quite modest) variation shown, the really warm UHI station is not Central Park but LaGuardia, which is not here as it is not the oldest and most established. Uness232 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Hi Uness232, thank you for your comments. I understand where you're coming from. However, with all due respect, I think you may be missing the bigger picture here. The NYC, LA, and Chicago articles each have a downtown weatherbox, an airport weatherbox, as well as its own Climate article (in which incidentally, Chicago actually has not just two but in fact three different station weatherboxes displayed). Koppen and Trewartha classifications aside, these very large cities have two weatherboxes each. JFK has generally less heat extreme in the summer given its heavier marine exposure but also less snow in the winter than Central Park, and that is the bigger picture that most readers justifiably get out of the two weatherboxes. The reader is less concerned with splitting hairs in the K or T classifications between the downtown and the airport weatherboxes. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've also recently seen foreign cities with climate of articles with multiple weatherboxes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Yes, I have seen this as well.Castncoot (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    For @Sagittarian Milky Way Of course Climate of X pages have multiple weatherboxes, they are specifically for the climate. I am saying that per WP:DETAIL, if Climate of NYC exists, only the strictly necessary detail should be promoted to the city article. This is my opposition to multiple weatherboxes here.

    And for @Castncoot: I understood your reasoning, but "climate changes slightly with siting" is a truism that a summary-level article generally speaking does not need. While JFK is in one microclimate of NYC, there is another, warm microclimate between Lower Manhattan and LaGuardia, why don't we include that? The Avenue V station in Brooklyn, with a UHI accentuated version of the marine JFK, is its own microclimate. The Bronx is another one with more continental influence. Why JFK and none of these? And I say this because, as I'm sure you remember, even one weatherbox was once controversial here: see , and the reasoning you are giving me is one that would apply for almost any two stations in any city: even partial wind shielding by terrain, presence or absence of canopied vegetation near the site, local frost hollows, proximity to small-scale urban heating (even assuming both stations are within the UHI zone) can easily create a -+1C spread in average temperature during the year. Therefore, weatherboxes are generally (emphasis on generally) put into city articles for one of a few reasons in my experience (some of them I have already pointed out to you before): 1)The city has no dedicated climate of X article (most US cities), so the station data has nowhere to go 2) The city straddles multiple Köppen or Trewartha zones, so multiple weatherboxes are necessary for [[[WP:V]] and WP:CALC of the zones themselves, which are too finely grained to show up in global maps. This is the case in Los Angeles, and is also the case in, for example, Vienna. 3) As you noted, the vast majority of US articles that have more than one station have one downtown and one airport station. This is intentional: you may notice that airport data is almost always somewhat cooler than the downtown measurements. This is because airports are usually situated somewhat outside most urbanized areas, and take in less UHI effect. So the goal is to show an urban and a roughly suburban climate. Yet this doesn't work for all cities: in some large cities urbanization has overtaken the airport area, and now airports are just another urban read. Another case of this is Atatürk Airport in Florya, Istanbul being the warmest station in Istanbul, and similarly, the warmest station in NYC being LaGuardia. So adding JFK, although cooler, doesn't fulfill the original purpose of adding airport stations: you just get extra ocean moderation, and whatever small effect on UHI lack of wind tunnels has. And yet, as you know, if you want to get a suburban/rural reading of the NYC area, you need to be outside NYC. So unless something necessitates JFK in particular, I would love to know, but I don't see it right now. And, generally speaking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can not be an end-all-be-all anyway. We must discuss what adding JFK contributes beyond adding any other station, or our climate sections will be full of weatherboxes showing minor differences with very little justification. Uness232 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    If you check the talk archives of this page, you'll see that we excel at knowing what the average reader would like to read. Seasider53 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    Okay, and the previous discussion barely resulted in the inclusion of this weatherbox, and a second weatherbox was not discussed at all. I also don't appreciate the tone. Uness232 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    I was being sarcastic, but you seem nice. Seasider53 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    Sorry. It sounded to me as if you were being serious at first. Either way, I am nicer in the talk archives. Uness232 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

    • @Uness232: Again, with all due respect, I believe that you are completely missing the big picture. First, please try to uncouple this feature from being directed by the Koppen and Trewartha indices. The average reader on this NYC article is not familiar with the Trewartha index (nor do they care). The average reader wants to see a downtown weather station and an airport weather station charted and displayed for large cities. In most cases, there will be at least some variation due to UHI as well as marine influences, and this is why an increasing number of city articles are now incorporating two weatherboxes. You can extend your technical reach to a more granular level on the city climate articles, but respectfully not here on the main city article where there is a bigger picture and wider angle involved. If you really want to modify the policy for all cities, then I would suggest that you take the policy-making route and apply it formally and consistently across the board for all city articles. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

      This is not about technical reach (I am actually trying to keep technical/statistical bloat out of the city article) but about WP:DETAIL. First of all, there is no policy to my knowledge for a necessity of two weatherboxes. The two weatherboxes that often are included, principally for cities without a Climate of X page, one airport one downtown, was made with airports being suburban in mind, which isn't the case here. And almost nothing in my previous response was about Köppen or Trewartha, I just said by your logic LaGuardia should also be included as it is the proper UHI station, unlike Central Park which is in a park, and other borough stations as well. My point is, what makes JFK special? If we are going to use one representative station, Central Park is it. But once you start adding stations to a WP:SUMMARY section with no other justification other than "differences exist" (especially when the differences are at the sub-1C level), well then every station qualifies, because of course differences exist, but the Climate of X article exists for a reason. Uness232 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)