Talk:New York City
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New York City article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
1. Was Manhattan Island really bought for a very small amount of currency (be it $24, one string of wampum, etc.)?
No. Charles Gehring, Director of the New Netherland Project, explains this myth in a video (skip ahead to 3:03) by the New York State Museum. In it, he says, "This is one of the biggest myths...pure fabrication. It says in the records that it was 60 guilders worth of goods. 60 guilders worth of goods would have been a lot of hard goods that the Indians couldn't produce themselves. You couldn't place a price on the...things that they were unable to make, the things they didn't have the technology for. The $24 figure was attached to the document when it was translated in the 1880s. The translators looked up the rate of exchange at the time and 60 guilders was $24. Nobody has ever even adjusted that for inflation over the years, so you not only have an incorrect rate of exchange, but the whole idea of what 60 guilders would have been worth to the Indians at the time is totally wrong."
Keepin' it real: The greatest deal in history never actually was. 2. Why is New York City classified as having a humid subtropical climate?
According to NOAA's 1981–2010 normals, Central Park in Manhattan has a January daily average temperature of 32.6 °F (0.3 °C) and in July, this figure is 76.5 °F (24.7 °C). This, in combination with its generous annual precipitation of 49.9 inches (1,270 mm) means the city itself falls under the humid subtropical regime of the Köppen climate classification (see this map). Locations in this regime in general do not have winter snow cover that is reliable enough to augment cold air masses; the "subtropical" designator is only part of the climate type's name and does not mean that the city (or the surrounding region) is in the subtropics, nor that winters here are mild. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New article: 2024 Manhattan stabbing spree
[edit]The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
United States vs. US
[edit]@Nikkimaria, you just made extensive edits in which a number of instances of "United States" were replaced by "US". Whether to abbreviate or not is debatable. Although MOS:ABBR states that, for countries, "the name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out", it also notes that "United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality." We need consensus on which form to use (of course specific instances might be allowable exceptions). We can't have "United States" ... "United States" ... "United States" in parts of the article and "US" ... "US" ... "US" in others. Consistency is always important, and to go back and forth like this is unencyclopedic and looks very careless. As points of reference, I see that Chicago and Los Angeles strongly favor "United States", and this would be my own preference. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? --Alan W (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- More important for consistency is to use "U.S." rather than "US". There were numerous cases of "U.S." already in the article, but "US" is almost exclusively used in front of a dollar sign (as in US$1 billion). Station1 (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with @Station1: as someone who still subphonates (it's my best guide to whether I'm reading something correctly or writing something like this comment euphoniously amd unambiguously) it might be different if U were not a vowel, but US can be unconsciously pronounced as the monosyllabic "Us" as in the magazine US (now more properly "Us Weekly"), rather than as two separate letters.
- [As a serendipitous example, I read "wrt", without periods, in @Nikkimaria:'s comment below as "w?rt" or "write" or a misprint instead of as "with regards to". I've taken the unjustifiable liberty of altering her text to expand "wrt" to "with regards to" for the benefit of others who don't text.] —— Shakescene (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a major concern with regards to commonality, since someone who gets that far into the article will certainly understand that US is referring to the United States. On the other hand, repeating the full name over and over is less "formal" and more repetitive. It's not careless to vary phrasing deliberately, and I think there is merit in using the shorter form more often. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my 1976 paperback edition of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage says "United States. Do not abbreviate in stories except in names, designations of highways and quoted matter." —— Shakescene (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that that guidance is now dated; the latest version of Chicago, for instance, allows use of "US" in text as long as the meaning is clear, which it would seem to be in the cases under discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Times Manual is not necessarily "dated" because Chicago has its own preferences. Every publisher has its own "house style". What I am trying to say is that, whichever way is agreed upon, we should be consistent. The section "Ethnicity and nationality", for example, has four instances of "United States". "Education" has four instances of "US". It is jarring to have it both ways, unless an exception is made for such things as "US$" where money is mentioned. It makes it look like this article was thrown together piecemeal. Which, in a way, it unavoidably has been. But part of our editing should involve smoothing out these differences. I would be happy to smooth out the differences myself. But I don't want to do any such thing unless some kind of consensus is reached. Oh, and there is also that about "U.S.", as Station1 has noted. That way is still preferred by many in the United States. I think that Shakescene raises some points worth considering as well. However it works out, the one thing I would insist on is a reasonable consistency. --Alan W (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have access to the Times manual to verify whether its guidance has changed since 1976, unfortunately, though I would not be surprised to see that it has. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know about the Times manual, but I just picked up a section of the Times itself, and I see it's "United States" wherever I see the country named. Hmm, in another section, one article uses "U.S." as an adjective. So there must be instances where some variation is permitted. (Note that there it's never "US", always "U.S." when abbreviated there.) Their writers must of course be following the manual. Anyway, although I personally prefer the full "United States", I think we do need to be consistent. Let's pick one style and go with it. Numerous Wikipedia style guidelines insist on consistency, and the way it was done first in a given article should have some extra weight, too. --Alan W (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following to "Further reading":
Wallace, Mike (2017), Greater Gotham: A History of New York City from 1898 to 1919, Oxford university Press ISBN 9780195116359. Lgarrisonf (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Geography
- B-Class vital articles in Geography
- B-Class New York City articles
- Top-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Top-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class United States History articles
- Low-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- WikiProject Cities core articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press