Talk:Metro New York

New Jersey and Connecticut articles

This region should only be for the towns in New York State as the other cities overlap with regions in their state. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:47, 4 March 2010 (EST)

I disagree. The hierarchical structure can be preserved just fine by having the CT and NJ regions' breadcrumbs direct up to their own states, rather than to this article. Removing towns and regions that are indisputably part of Metro New York decreases the value of this article. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:41, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

I didn't mean to remove them, just to fix the breadcrumbs of the cities to their respective states. Obviously they should be mentioned here, I just made them less apparent to fix the regional hierarchy. Before it listed New Haven as a part of the Mid-Atlantic and New York State, which is obviously incorrect. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:51, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

Litchfield Hills

They were just added to this article, but I think on balance, they don't belong. Sure, Danbury is commutable (albeit a fairly long commute) to and from New York City, and so, for that matter, is Waterbury, but much of the rest of the area is 2 hours' drive from the city or longer, and in addition, it's an area of mostly small towns and countryside, especially in the northern part of the region, which borders on Massachusetts' Berkshire County. Would it be inappropriate to remove mention of the Litchfield Hills from this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It really wouldn't. Not only is it too far away from the city, it's mostly small towns, nothing like the rest of Metro New York. Why include it if it's nothing like any of the other regions in the article? Nick1372 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree and will remove it now. If anyone feels strongly that the region should be reinserted, they should please make an argument here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bridgeport

I don't think Bridgeport is really in Metro New York. Your opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The New York–Newark Combined Statistical Area includes all of Fairfield County, CT (aka the Bridgeport–Stamford–Norwalk metro). Also, if we excised Bridgeport, we'd also have to take out New Haven.

That said, I see your point. I'm not sure how useful this region is to the traveler, but Peter thought it was weird to include only New York State destinations within it, so I guess the CSA seemed like a logical step up. Powers ^(talk) 01:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

New Haven is 2 hours' train ride and 75 miles from New York City. I don't think anyone really considers it part of the New York Metropolitan Area except some pencil-pushers in the government who aren't in touch with the reality on the ground. :-) And to be fair, Fairfield County is normally considered part of the metro area and Bridgeport is in Fairfield County, but as you said, it's really much closer to New Haven and quite a long commute to New York. However, New Haven is not in Fairfield County but in New Haven County, so it's not so arbitrary to distinguish between them.

Stamford is very much part of the metro area, though. When I had to take a 6:59 AM train to New Haven recently to go to a funeral, I noticed that a large number of people had reverse-commuted from New York to Stamford, because there are so many corporate headquarters there now. I'd definitely consider Norwalk part of the metro area, too, but past that, things get kind of fuzzy.

One final thing to consider, from w:Fairfield County, Connecticut:

The United States Office of Management and Budget has designated Fairfield County as the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area. The United States Census Bureau ranked the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area as the 57th most populous metropolitan statistical area of the United States as of July 1, 2012. The Office of Management and Budget has further designated the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area as a component of the more extensive New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area

So we could regard these cities, or some of them, as more their own area than the New York City metropolitan area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

So what do you think? I still think it's senseless to consider New Haven part of the New York Metropolitan Area. Can we consider parts of CT past Norwalk or so to be outside the Metro area? I think if we consider New Haven part of the New York Metro area, we should probably also consider Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton, Pennsylvania to be part of the Metro area, but I think they're much more exurban to New York than suburban. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest advertising this more widely. User:Peterfitzgerald was the creator and definer of this region. I've never cared for the confusing overlap between this region and the surrounding states; it's the only region of New York state covering this land, but the other states all have other regions covering the same territory. I mean, logically, it makes sense to include certain non-NY parts of the NYC area as part of the same region, but logistically it's a nightmare.

I didn't realize Allentown was part of the NYC-Newark CSA. From a cultural point of view, it's much more closely tied to Philadelphia. And I suspect that folks in New Haven feel closer to Boston than to NYC (though I don't know that for sure). I think it's likely that using the CSA boundaries isn't the best from a traveller's perspective.

- Powers ^(talk) 21:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people from New Haven feel closer to Boston. For example, Connecticut is traditionally divided more or less down the middle between Yankees and Red Sox fans. I think you'd find more Yankees fans in New Haven than Red Sox fans, though I could be wrong. However, it really is far enough from New York to have its own separate identity.

I agree on advertising this discussion more widely, but should we make a proposal or just advertise it as a discussion on how to revamp the definition of this region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"See" section

This section covers New York City only, which is pretty outrageous. It's shocking if you think about how long that must have been the case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Breadcrumbs and article text contradicting each other

There seems to be the problem that the breadcrumbs indicate this to be a "normal" region that is contained within New York state yet the article itself mentions "regions" in three separate states. How do we solve this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the New York Metro Area is the "Tri-State" region, which is an extra-region in a Wikivoyage context, but the breadcrumbs consider only the part of the area that's within New York state. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, tri-state area rings a bell... Something about watching law and order did do me some good after all ;-). And I see the dilemma. So you say keep as is? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can, but I'm not quite sure how to deal with this. User:AndreCarrotflower, User:PerryPlanet, User:LtPowers, User:Jim.henderson, et al., what do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh, what an odd situation. The text of the article would suggest that this is an extra-hierarchical region, but it is does actually fit into the hierarchy as part of the regional breakdown of New York state, where it doesn't for Connecticut and New Jersey. What I would recommend is to leave this article but tag it as an extra-hierarchical region to get it out of the breadcrumb system (because I think it would be useful to have this around, since "Metro New York/Greater Tri-State Area" is fairly widely used), then create a new region article for only those portions of Metro New York that are within New York state, which we can use to replace this article in the New York state region breakdown. Thoughts? PerryPlanet (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I fear that would result in a lot of overlap. In addition to that, I always though the state lines within metro New York are not all that important except for New Yorkers deriding those not living in New York. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. User:Peterfitzgerald was of the opinion that it was absurd to have an article covering only the NYS portions of the region -- which would just be Long Island, NYC, and a couple of counties north of the city. (His stated model for this was the Chicagoland article, which (until April 2015) explicitly overlapped with northwestern Indiana and southeastern Wisconsin.) I've never been happy with this solution, but I never had a better idea, either. Powers ^(talk) 19:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

To address Hobbitschuster's point on overlap: I think a bit of overlap is fine, as long as it's limited. I think everyone understands that there will be some overlap between coverage of a smaller region in a larger, parent region's article. It seems to me, the division of Metro New York into one extra-region article and one article that covers only the portion within New York State is probably the least bad solution, unless we can think of a less confusing name for the New York City area within New York state. Could we call it "Downstate" or "Downstate New York"? I think so. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be a fine name for the article, but I have similar concerns to Peter. An article that covers Westchester and Suffolk counties but not northern NJ or southwest CT just seems odd. Is that a useful travel region? Or would we be creating it just for the sake of adhering to the state's administrative boundary? Powers ^(talk) 00:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't be creating it, as it's already existed for some time. Metro New York is shown on the map of New York (state) as one of 9 first-order regions of the state. The map shows only Westchester, Rockland, Nassau and Suffolk Counties and New York City as part of this region. If we want to continue to use this as a region of the state, I agree that it makes little sense to call this region "Metro New York". For that reason, I suggest renaming it "Downstate New York" and keeping Metro New York in more or less its current form (though I argue above for excising the New Haven region from it) and redefining it as an extra-region.

If you don't want to continue to use this as a region of the state, what alternate suggestion would you make? To treat all these counties as not being breadcrumbed to New York (state)? To breadcrumb each of these counties separately, thus essentially creating 9 small new first-order regions of the state? Or something else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We would be creating it. There is no current article that covers that covers all of and only Downstate NY. That appears to be what you're proposing; I'm questioning whether it's a useful travel region, or if the redesignated extra-hierarchical region Metro New York would end up being more frequently used and better developed. Powers ^(talk) 18:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Right now, there is a contradiction between the state map, listing Metro New York as a region of the state — and only of New York State — and this article, which treats Metro New York as an extra-region. I think my proposed solution is the best. Please give an alternate solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, looking at the great dearth of edits to this article, I don't think that there's too much risk of one being better developed than another, but which one people use more doesn't seem important to me. That's purely an issue of what people find most useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If your proposed Downstate NY article isn't going to be developed or used, then why bother creating it? Powers ^(talk) 00:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It will be used somewhat because it will be linked from the New York (state) article. But if we really are basing all decisions on the number of people consulting regional articles, we're probably in trouble. And I can assure you, my proposed article will be much better developed than most region articles on this site — not least because I, probably you, and probably several other people with an interest in the New York area will edit it. So what do you say? I don't like having the current irregular situation continue indefinitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I know virtually nothing about downstate, but a region that includes White Plains but not Newark just strikes me as odd. And if, as you claim, the downstate article would be well developed, then it would have an awful lot of overlap with Metro New York. Powers ^(talk) 02:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And therefore, your solution is to do nothing and maintain the existing contradiction? I find it very surprising that you prefer an irregular situation. I thought you cared greatly for regularity and adherence to site policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't really have a better idea. I'm trying to tease out whether or not your idea is better, worse, or a lateral move. If it's not demonstrably better, then I don't see any reason to change, even if the current solution is unsatisfactory. Powers ^(talk) 23:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

2017

Would this work? Could we create Metro New York (New York) as a redirect to this page (while breadcrumbing the redirect to New York State), and then breadcrumb the New York State cities to the redirect? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggested solution. However, I don't like the redundancy of "New York (New York)" in the title; I think that's confusing, and I still prefer the designation of "Downstate New York". But based on the above discussion, no-one but you and I so far have been willing to do anything to solve the inconsistency of having a region that is only in New York state but an article that also covers areas of New Jersey and Connecticut that are in the New York Metropolitan Area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking: It's not redundant. The "New York" in "Metro New York" refers to the city, and the "New York" in parentheses refers to the state. Still, I see your point about how it could be confusing. But I'm worried that it might be confusing for the redirect and the guide to have different titles.

We could make the redirect Metro New York (New York State). I think our usual practice is to leave off the "State" (e.g. Huntington (New York)). But considering the potential for confusion, I think we can make an exception in this case. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Then again: The "redirected from" notice would help a lot with confusion. Downstate New York is an established and commonly used term (I think), and "Metro New York (New York State)" is a bit of a mouthful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's my feeling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

2021

I still support this solution. Note this recent edit, which again points to the problem of having a tri-state area shoehorned into a breadcrumb hierarchy in which it doesn't belong. Can we please at long last fix this problem? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. I agree. As written, Metro New York needs to be an extraregion, removed from the breadcrumb hierarchy. A new Downstate New York region can cover the NYS portions. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put this thread (or a renamed one) on Requests for comment and see if we can get a consensus behind this proposal this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support. FWIW, with a glance at the previous threads, I'd say you already had a consensus for the change, with just one user dragging his heels.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a good solution to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a consensus except for two people, but unfortunately one of them, User:(WT-en) Peter, is long gone. But I didn't think there had been enough participants in this thread until now. I'll give this until later this week to see whether there are any objections or alternate proposals. Thanks, guys. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I was, perhaps, "dragging my feet" a little, but not out of opposition to the idea specifically. It was a combination of respect for Peter's professed opinion and a concern that we might be introducing a problem worse than the one we fix. At a few years' remove, however, the proposal seems most in line with our site organization, even if it leads to some redundancy. Powers ^(talk) 00:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support. Pashley (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, this definitely looks like a consensus now. I think we can start taking care of this, but I'm too tired tonight (symptoms of my 2nd Pfizer shot, which I had yesterday afternoon). Powers, I really appreciate your flexibility. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Side issue

Should Putnam County (New York) be moved from Mid-Hudson and Catskills to the proposed new Downstate New York article? It's way less densely populated than Westchester County, but whereas parts of Dutchess County are too far north for Metro-North, very rural and closer to Albany than to New York City, Putnam County is significantly closer to New York City and has two Metro-North lines that go through the county. If you look at the map at Mid-Hudson and Catskills and zoom out so you see both New York City and Albany, Putnam County looks distinctly south of center. I don't feel strongly about this side issue, though, and we could always come back to it later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering what's in Putnam County (New York), it sure looks like a mid-Hudson county. Powers ^(talk) 00:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't feel strongly about this; we could really go either way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)