Talk:New York City/Archive 2012-2017

"Touting and direct recommendations removed"

In this edit - http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_City&curid=24468&diff=2146905&oldid=2141636 - Ml31415 made the foregoing statement. On the face of it, I disagree both with the description and the removal. None of this is touting by businesses; just statements by knowledgeable New Yorkers and visitors. However, there is an argument to be made that no eatery of any kind should be mentioned at this level, only at the borough or district level. So what do you all think? I could revert the edit (and maybe I should), but I'd rather have this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a tough call, although I'm inclined to lean towards mention of eateries on the city level if they are prominent or exceptionally fine examples of local cuisine. Chicago#Eat has some fine examples of this. So long as we don't tout, I don't see a problem with it. PerryPlanet (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ikan. Let me explain my point. What I removed were recommendations for some steet food locations. For me, I wouldn't cross the whole city, just to get a burger, bagel or whatever in a specific place. I wouldn't cross Bangkok, only to get my Pad Thai in THAT fancy street food place, if there are hundreds of nearly equal options just a foodstep away. The comments were moderate in tone, I agree, but they are just not relevant enough to be there at all, especially if an article is growing too lengthy anyways.

The bigger the city, the less restaurants should be in the main city page imho. And New York is quite big, so there should be very few recommendations. The problem is, if it becomes too few, then the owners or advertisement guys of the removed restaurants have a good point to ask, why is this one there, any my restaurant, equally nice and relevant not. So I guess it would be better to have all businesses in the district pages, than just keeping a few.

Besides that, I don't care much about the my edit, feel free to revert it. I just coincidentially stumbled about the NYC guide, when I thought it was a good idea to put the skyline in there.

P.S. I just saw the discussion about the eateries from 2007. If even all the much more relvant eateries are completely moved to the district pages, why would you keep the street food stuff? ML31415^✉ Talk 06:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you been to Katz's Delicatessen? It's not street food, and people travel from around the world to have pastrami sandwiches there. There are some places that are just traditional. I don't think that Junior's has anything close to the best cheesecake (S&S from the Bronx, also sold at Zabar's, has a good claim), and Nathan's does indeed serve good hotdogs, but part of the draw is that you're eating a Nathan's hotdog in Coney Island. H&H Bagels are popular, but not all New Yorkers actually like them, and there are quite a few connoisseurs who consider Absolute the best. I'm not sure you aren't right to remove all mentions of specific eateries, but they did give some local color to the page. On the other hand, the article is too long, and a lot of your reasoning is sound. I'd like to read some more views because as a New Yorker, I may be too attached to the mention of some of these places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I reinserted Katz's Deli, because that's a really essential place for a pastrami-lover to go to, and great pastrami actually is not easy to find in New York. But otherwise, I'm embracing your deletions because the article is so long (see below). Ikan Kekek (talk)

How can this article be shortened?

Please, let's put our heads together and figure out what text is inessential in this article. I actually think it could have some more pictures, but the text is very long, and some of it is boring. I'd love, for example, to delete some of the info on airports, but it seems essential. I'm having trouble seeing what's really inessential. So please help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

One way would be to move more information to the boroughs. --Peter ^Talk 16:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, but which information in particular? For example, we could put the LaGuardia and Kennedy Airport info in Queens and the Newark Airport info in Newark and link it here. Or perhaps the amount of detail is so large that we should consider doing the exceptional thing and making a "New York Area Airports" guide. I would support that. Any other specific things you'd suggest moving to borough guides? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A problem I see with moving the airport info to the boroughs is that everyone has a good sense that JFK and LaGuardia are in NYC, but they may not know it's in Queens. So they'll come to the NYC article, and then have trouble finding the info. However, a New York Area Airports guide, along the lines of O'Hare or Heathrow I could totally get behind. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think having basic information about the airports in this article, but shoveling the bulk of the content to Newark and Queens is the right way to do it. Keeping an overview of what the airport options are, with links to where the main content is, should take care of PerryPlanet's concern, I think. Chicago#By plane provides a decent example, since most of the content is at O'Hare International Airport and Chicago/Southwest Side (for Midway). Having a New York Area airports article would work too, but it might be a little tricky to coordinate the distribution of content across such an article, the NYC articles (overview, boroughs, and districts), Long Island, and Newark. --Peter ^Talk 19:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

While we're discussing which of these options (both reasonable, in my opinion) is the best way to deal with airport information, what other sections can be shortened or/and moved to borough articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, just glancing through, the entire lead to the Get around section is extremely specific to Manhattan, so that can be moved. I'm also not sure about the subway route overview. In effect, it's basically the same information as the map, but in text form. It might be too detailed for the guide, but I could be wrong, maybe other people have found this useful. Also, the neighborhoods part of the Drink section could probably work better in paragraph form rather than a long list, and that would use less space.

Also, this wouldn't really cut out a lot of text, but there's this odd obsession with section headers in this article. Every little topic gets its own section, like "Local Beers" and "Last Call" in Drink, or "Taxes" in Sleep, or "Credit cards" and "Tipping" in Eat, where there's only a line or two of text. I mean, it's nice that it's so clearly marked, but it creates a lot of white space. How about just a paragraph, with the key word bolded so that readers can find the info quickly? PerryPlanet (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Quick reply: I think I agree with you about at least most of the "Get around," which can be moved as needed to each borough. Some general commentary should remain. I'll have a look later if someone else doesn't get to it first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment, wouldn't be necessary to cover in that length imho. Especially the movie stuff is more something for an itinerary. Eat section: some banalities and common sense (credit card, tipping, ... not different than in rest of U.S.) could be dropped. Get in, too long, but hard to say what to cut out, maybe worth an own article. Same with Get around. E.g. parking issues and all the car stuff could be moved, while the main page only says: don't do it, you'll hate it. Same with metro, the map is fine, but no explanation of fares and so on. Everything that also could be solved with some common sense and/or asking the next best person right on the street is not worth to be treated in full length in an overview guide. ML31415 Mail Talk 09:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I like your outside-the-box thinking. For one thing, the idea of a separate travel topic called "Transportation in New York City" appeals to me. What we're talking about would change this article in major ways, so I'd like more discussion and some kind of consensus before taking action. Please keep the ideas coming, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's please resume this discussion. Do I have support for moving the entire "By plane" section to an article called "New York Area Airports," which will then need to be edited and enlarged per discussions in Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition? I'm not an expert on the airports, so I would probably just cut and paste the content, for it to be edited later. Is that OK with all of you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's OK as long as a good, self-sufficient section is left behind in this article. --Peter ^Talk 04:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather leave a link, as in "For information on how to get to and from airports serving New York City, please see the New York City Area Airports article." If any information is needed other than a link, I could propose the following text, with suitable links added:

There are two airports within New York City limits: LaGuardia Airport (IATA: LGA) and John F. Kennedy Airport (IATA: JFK), both in Queens. LaGuardia is much closer to Manhattan, and both these airports are more convenient to Manhattan than Newark Airport (IATA: EWR) in New Jersey, the other major airport serving New York City. All these three airports serve New York City quite adequately.

There are also flights to MacArthur Airport (IATA: ISP) in Suffolk County, Long Island, but think twice about flying there even if you are tempted by a low fare, as it is quite a lot farther from New York City. Westchester County Airport (IATA: HPN) and Stewart Airport (IATA: SWF) in Orange County are unlikely to have discounted flights and are not very convenient to New York City. Teterboro Airport (IATA: TEB), in Teterboro, New Jersey, is used primarily for general aviation and receives no commercial flights.

For information on how to get to and from airports serving New York City, please see the New York City Area Airports article.

Good? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems a little too brief to me (with awkward phrasing in some spots). We don't want to require people to read the subarticle; it should only be necessary if they want additional information. I'm sure we can find a middle ground here. =) LtPowers (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I too would like to see more info than what you're proposing. In my mind, the NYC article should have enough info to act as a general overview, with all the info that travelers will absolutely need to know. The more detailed info (what's in the terminals, which airlines serve which airports, some of the more detailed info on how to get to the city from the airport) can go in that separate airport article. Mind you, I don't think all the info on getting from the airport to the city should vanish into the airport article; I think a note of which train/bus services go to the airport should still be kept here, but we probably don't need a paragraph for each option on the NYC article. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, this information is pretty essential, but it's long and boring, and seems like the most obvious thing to excise from this article to make it a better guide to the city, not to airports. I gave a stab at minimal coverage of airports. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I'm having trouble seeing the middleground between something like what I proposed and what's there now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're proposing to excise the relatively brief mentions of some airlines that serve particular airports, and mentions of where left luggage services and luggage "trolleys" (not a New York usage! we call them luggage carts) are available, but I don't think that would help a lot either to shorten the article or make it more readable. At the very least, we should dismiss the airports mentioned in "Other Airports" (except for Teterboro for general aviation) as undesirable, perhaps as briefly as just naming them and following their names with "are not very useful for travel to New York City." But the surface transportation options, while essential, again, are long and boring and not a good read. Perhaps one of you would like to propose your own version of a briefer section that includes all the airport information you believe needs to remain in this article, but let's not lose sight of our goals: (1) The article is way too long and boring, and needs to be cut. (2) We want readers to have access to essential information. (3) Not all of the essential information needs to be in this article. Information on tipping is essential to most international visitors to New York, but they can refer to the United States article. How is that different from requiring visitors who come to New York by air to refer to a New York City Area Airports article? If we cram this article with all manner of individually useful information, it will remain deadly long and boring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As with any information shunted into a subarticle (like a district), the removed information should be summarized in the parent article. Summarizing well is a tricky skill, and one that I'm not sure I have. But I can take a stab at it when I get some time. It's very important that we don't remove essential information in our quest to make this article shorter. LtPowers (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I'm proposing as a middleground: right now, most of the text in the By Plane section has to do with getting from the airport to the city, and a lot of it has very detailed info like prices, so I'm gonna focus on this because a lot of it can be dramatically cut down. Considering that we cover the cost of Metrocards and what not elsewhere on the article, we don't need to repeat this info in the By Plane section. So instead of a long list of every possible means of getting out of the airport, we just condense that info to 1-2 paragraphs per airport. So for instance, JFK's "Get in" info could be shortened to this:

The JFK AirTrain [link] is a people mover system that runs 24h, connecting all airport terminals with nearby rail and metro stations. Runs service to Howard Beach Station to connect with the "A" Train, and Jamaica Station to connect with the "E" Train, the "J/Z" Train, and the Long Island Railroad. Total time to Manhattan using the subway is 60 minutes; using the Long Island Railroad is 45 minutes, which is sometimes faster than taking a taxi. MTA NYC Buses departing from near Terminal 5 are the cheapest methods of transport out of JFK, although the slowest to Manhattan. These buses have little room for luggage and go to non-touristy neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn. However, they offer connections to the subway and Long Island Railroad. The Q10 [link], Q3 [link], and B15 [link] routes connect to the subway/LIRR. MetroCards ([see below in Get around]) are sold at Hudson Newsstands in Terminals 1 and 5.

Taxis [see taxis in Get Around] are the most flexible option into the city, although the wait for one can be long when many flights arrive simultaneously. Taxi fare runs a flat $45 to anywhere in Manhattan, not including tolls or tips. Taxis to points other than Manhattan and taxis to the airport use the meter. As an alternative to taxis, car services are useful for getting to the airport from the outer boroughs where taxis are harder to find, or if you prefer to have transportation reserved in advance. There are also many shuttles serving JFK, which are cheaper than taxis though more expensive than public transit. The New York City Airporter Bus [link] provides frequent services to/from Grand Central Terminal and the Port Authority Bus Terminal. SuperShuttle [link] blue vans provide door-to-door service to Manhattan hotels. The Go Airlink Shuttle [link] is a shared van service to or from most of Manhattan.

Look how much shorter that is! It gives you a sense of what options are available, but doesn't overwhelm you with information. And then we move all the super detailed info that's there now to this new airports article. Of course, this is just my idea; for all I know, what I'm proposing might be even shorter than what LtPowers had in mind. I really would like to hear others weigh in on this. PerryPlanet (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

With a lot of the info about JFK and EWR moved to airport articles (kudos to those of you more knowledgeable about those airports than I who've been working hard on the articles!) and some other information moved to borough and district pages, this article is looking a lot better. Are there other things that should be moved, edited, or deleted? How does everyone feel about the subway "Route overview" now? It doesn't seem too long to me now (in fact, I'll add one bit of info to it), nor is it quite as Manhattan-centric as I think it once was. Any other sections we should focus on? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Trad jazz

With this edit, Peter introduced the term "trad jazz", meaning the Dixieland and Ragtime revival of the mid-20th century. I was unfamiliar with the term (though I could glean its meaning); might it be worth glossing it or just saying "Dixieland" or something? LtPowers (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In New Orleans it's exclusively referred to as trad jazz (which isn't quite dixieland). But if it's too confusing in New York, by all means change it to Dixieland. I'd hate to have this article gushing about NYC as the jazz capital without at least mentioning New Orleans, though. --Peter ^Talk 23:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

New York 5th-largest in the world?

Here is the current text:

"The most populous city in the United States and the 5th largest in the world (after Tokyo, Seoul, Mexico City, and Mumbai), New York has long been a key entry point and a defining city for the nation."

I'm deleting this. It's clearly false. Shanghai and Beijing are other clearly more populous cities, and I believe Sao Paulo is also more populous. I believe there are others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. The size of the city depends heavily on where the lines are arbitrarily drawn, so comparisons are usually better done by metro area—NYC remains truly one of the world's top metropolises by size. Comparing cities proper, Tehran is 1.5x the size of Tokyo, but it would be ridiculous to call it a bigger city. --Peter ^Talk 04:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's defensible to make statements of fact about metropolitan areas, but this article is specifically about New York City, which everyone, to my knowledge, agrees ends at the city limits. And on a subjective basis, having been to Shanghai and Beijing relatively recently (2004), I definitely don't consider it ridiculous at all to call both of them bigger than New York. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

All the same, I wouldn't say in the D.C. article, for example, that D.C. is a smaller city than Baltimore—that would be an absurd thing to say. You could dodge the tricky bits just by changing the wording to "metropolis," though ;) --Peter ^Talk 06:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

According to w: List of metropolitan areas by population, New York ranked #4 in population of metropolitan areas in 2011, but the city proper (i.e., the 5 boroughs) ranked #19, apparently in the 2010 Census (see w: List of cities proper by population). I think the remaining introductory paragraph is quite adequate:

"One of the world's great cities, New York City (also referred to as "New York", "NYC", or "The Big Apple") is a global center for media, entertainment, art, fashion, research, finance, and trade. The most populous city in the United States, New York has long been a key entry point and a defining city for the nation." Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It works, but it's pretty dry for the lede to New York of all places. A liberal dose of star struck wonder or cosmopolitan arrogance might do the lede good. --Peter ^Talk 08:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A non-New Yorker might be better at expressing that. I love New York, but it's my home town, and home is not a place that leaves a person awestruck. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"The bustling, cosmopolitan heart of the 4th largest metropolis in the world (after Tokyo, Seoul, and Mexico City) and by far the most populous city in the United States, New York has long been a key entry point and a defining city for the nation", maybe? PerryPlanet (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Eat section

For a city with one of the best (arguably the best?) culinary scenes, the eat section here is pretty useless. There are tons and tons of district articles, so this really needs to direct readers to where they need to go. Mention which district article is the place to look for various types of food. A pizza section is sorely lacking, which should mention some of the best spots throughout the city per general consensus. An "ethnic foods" section (the world needs a better name for that) could list the best places to go for various cuisines, e.g., try Russian, Georgian, or Uzbek cuisines in Brighton Beach, Korean in Flushing, Dominican in Washington Heights, etc. There should be a paragraph (at least) devoted to haute cuisine, what trends are currently hot, where the main gourmet districts are, etc. Right now the only good eat section in this guide is at Queens#Eat—New York City#Eat, Manhattan#Eat, and Brooklyn#Eat are useless.

I bring this up as a reader, since I'm on my way up there soon for a long weekend, and find no help from Wikivoyage on the culinary end, unless I wade through 30 district articles. --Peter ^Talk 02:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This might be good inspiration for a pizza subsection. --Peter ^Talk 02:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The scope of this article may just be too big for New York City#Eat to contain much more than a good region article would have. The boroughs may have to carry most of the weight here. LtPowers (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LtPowers. We want to shorten this article, not lengthen it. I see the argument that there should be better overviews at the borough level, though. But really, if you want detailed eating info, go to Chowhound, Yelp, and similar sites for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what I did, but the point is that a "guide" status article really shouldn't require readers to read Chowhound (great site) to get this type of info. I don't think that shortening is a goal in and of itself. Consolidating content, making sure it's in the right place, excising fluff, and avoiding duplication with the boroughs are laudable goals, but we shouldn't be omitting important stuff for fear of bytes. If we put the sort of content I suggested in the borough overview articles, that's great—but it's not there now, and would need to be at least mentioned in this article. --Peter ^Talk 21:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter, you referring back to that great Daily Show bit was just the inspiration I needed to write a section on New York pizza. Anyway, I agree with Peter on this, I don't think we should hold back on expanding and livening up the Eat section. I don't see length alone as a problem with this article, it's lengthy, non-engaging writing that's the issue. But anything that has to do with food is just plain fun to read, no matter where it's referring to. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That pizza section is precisely the sort of thing we need—thanks! It's brief and shallow (as it should be at this level of the hierarchy), it points readers towards further information, and is engaging. It also confirms what I garnered from my research, although it may sin in omitting Staten Island, which I understand has several exceptional pizzerias. You hit the nail on the head when you identify the problem as lengthy + non-engaging ;) --Peter ^Talk 04:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but here are my 2 cents: I've had a look at the new pizza section. What kind of pizza do you think we should cover? Only the two classic New York styles - coal oven (e.g., Patsy's in East Harlem - which has to be mentioned, if any pizzeria is mentioned - Arturo's, John's on Bleecker, Lombardi's [which I find unimpressive], Grimaldi's) and gas oven (e.g., DiFara's plus most corner slice places)? Should we leave out all the brick oven places like South Brooklyn Pizza (my current favorite), Neapolitan-style whole-pie pizzerias, etc., etc.? Look at the definitions in this post , though I disagree with some of their ratings, and look at the reply by kathryn in this thread: . Maybe we should give a longer and more detailed primer on pizza, but then we have to cut more of the boring stuff on the page. And since I'm very busy at this time, so I don't think I'll be the one to do it if it's happening this week, or possibly within the next 3 weeks or so, but it really is essential to list Patsy's, as they are known for making Apollonian coal-oven plain pizza - just good sauce, good cheese, maybe a bit too much char if anything. It's archetypal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a bit more information. I think you all will like it, if I may be so bold. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the additions! Including the basic difference between gas and coal-oven pizza seems important, if just to explain what it is that makes coal-oven pizza special. I think mentioning that Neapolitan-style is available is sufficient; since people who read this will likely be expecting an explanation of classic New York pizza, I think we can afford to downplay other styles. PerryPlanet (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we've got a solid pizza section now, so let's see if we can keep the momentum going! I just tried my hand at a little hot dog section, and I'll turn my attention to bagels and deli sandwiches soon enough. Of course, I expect the locals to keep my outsider views in check! ;) PerryPlanet (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The sort of stuff you guys are now adding is fantastic—precisely what was needed! I don't have enough generalized knowledge to contribute too much, but I'll see what I can't do for the Harlem article. It would be nice to have a star district... --Peter ^Talk 19:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've added sections on the individual dishes and I added a paragraph for "ethnic cuisines" (which will likely need expanding), so I think we have the beginnings of a solid Eat section here. We still need something on haute cuisine and gourmet districts, but I feel like I've reached the end of my rope here. Anyone else want to give it a shot? PerryPlanet (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I really hate the term "ethnic" cuisine. Everything is ethnic, unless we're using the word as a coded term to mean a marked category (not American, presumably not French because that's high-status, possibly not Italian). However, I don't want to seem too curmudgeonly, and I definitely appreciate your efforts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I hate the term "ethnic" cuisine too, but I honestly couldn't think of anything else. You know what, I'll just cut it to "cuisine". That'll work for now. PerryPlanet (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I added some to the section. Of course it's more colorful and specific now, but might it be a mistake to put so much detail here, rather than farming it all out to the borough guides? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is too much detail, at least not yet. If we really need to, we can farm some of this out later, but if we're trying to cut this article down, I don't think anything in the Eat section really needs to be a priority. Not when we still have that giant Get In section. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The main thing is that information relevant to all of New York City is here, and probably most information that applies to more than one of the boroughs. Also it's probably good to keep in mind that most readers will only look at this article, rather than reading the individual borough articles. --Peter ^Talk 18:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

I've noticed the SIR is completely missing from this article, despite the subway lines & other rail lines having specific information. I want to add it, but I'm not sure where. Technically, it is commuter rail, despite being partially underground. However, the MTA treats it as a subway, as it is on the subway map and I believe it is in the same area of the website. Which one would be a better fit? Nick1372 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to put it right before PATH (or right after PATH). It's intra-city but only in Staten Island, and most visitors won't use it, but it's good for them to know about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A bunch of changes

After going over this article, there are a bunch of improvements I want to implement, but just to be safe, I thought I'd discuss them here first.

1. The obvious bias towards Manhattan and away from Staten Island & The Bronx

I get that most visitors will want to visit Manhattan, and that it's the heart of the city, and that most other travel guides are biased towards this as well, and yada yada yada. But that's not an excuse for Manhattan to be mentioned in the article over 100 times as The Bronx is mentioned a paltry 22! Also, it's blatant! For example, in the Bicycle section, it starts with: Cycling in Manhattan… with no mention of the other boroughs at all. (It's also a horror, in my opinion, to exclude Staten Island from the Parks and Pizza sections)

2. Gas prices

I have an idea to add the average price of a gallon of gas in NYC to the Gas/Petrol stations sections. Is that appropriate here? I have a feeling it would be more appropriate for the individual borough articles.

3. The bicycle section

I think the By bicycle section needs improving. Along with the aforementioned bias towards Manhattan, a few other things need to be improved. The city's new Bike Share program, a tidbit on bikes on public transportation, and the perils of biking on Staten Island need to be added.

4. Television

This is minor, but shouldn't the shows in the Television section be italicized rather than in bold?

5. Minor League Sports

Should the New York's two Minor League Baseball teams (the Brooklyn Cyclones and the Staten Island Yankees) be included in the Sports section?

Thanks for reading my whole long list, and please tell me whatever feedback you have! Nick1372 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There's actually been a whole lot of work lately to reduce the Manhattan bias of this article, so by all means help out with that. I think there will always been some bias towards Manhattan, given that it's the main attraction, but anything you can do to reduce it is fine by me. By all means, plunge forward and add Staten Island info to the bicycle, parks, and pizza sections, and expand the bike section (while you're at it, feel free to expand the bike section to include info on Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx too!). Same goes for the minor league sports teams.

As for the television shows, I have no strong opinions on that matter.

The only thing I would disagree on is adding gas price info. I'm a little hesitant there because that information is very susceptible to change. Plus, even if it is accurate, the "average price" doesn't tell you very much given that a lot also depends on which gas station you go too. Given that there are entire websites devoted to that sort of information that can do it so much more fully and accurately than we could hope to, I'd advice against it. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Perry said everything so well that I can only say that I agree with his points and encourage you to go ahead and make the changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Page banner

Hello!

The current page banner, I must confess, is a bit rubbish. When I implemented it I thought it might look, cool, zany and a little bit different. Instead it looks like some sort of horrific incident - not what we want. With this eventuality in mind I did upload another banner (see below) - any thoughts on that or suggestions for other images that don't suggest enormous seismic activity would be very welcome indeed! :) --Nick (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Banner 2

I've now changed the banner to an alternative. The original is below for reference. --Nick (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Original banner

I like the taxi one that's up now. It's dynamic and exciting, and as an added bonus taxis are something found all over NYC, not just Manhattan, so we avoid looking Manhattan-centric with that banner. ;) PerryPlanet (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the taxi image, per se; it's well framed and certainly iconic. But it's not very appealing. We risk turning off potential visitors rather than drawing them in. LtPowers (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This calls for some alternates! After a lengthy (read: all of fifteen minutes) search and crop/resize, I've come up with a couple of potential banners of taxis below (and of course, if anyone else has a different image they'd like to offer, bring it in!). PerryPlanet (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Contestant number one is a rather pleasant shot with a lot of people and life, with the cabs adding a splash of color

While contestant number two is a taxi in motion, going more for the psychological implication of a city constantly on the move

[Edit conflict]It's also somewhat Manhattan-centric because where else would that scene be? I think we should give them an image of the Manhattan skyline, although the one above might be a bit glary in places. It's the most iconic image to give them (unless we want to give them the Statue of Liberty, and I think that's both too trite and not as interesting to look at), and let's face it: Visits to New York usually are Manhattan-centric, for some good reasons. An alternative would be to give a view of the Brooklyn Bridge, looking uptown on the river, so that you can see the Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensboro Bridges, ergo 3 boroughs. If we really have to use a banner with taxis in it, the one in front of the Met looks best. It's offbeat and kind of imaginative, so it might grow on me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can make a banner with that view from the Brooklyn Bridge, I would love to see it up here as another alternate to consider. I just latched on to the taxi idea because there's something I find some gosh-darned eye-catching and appealing about all those yellow cars. All I meant by not being Manhattan-centric is that it's one of the few icons of New York that can be said to represent all the boroughs, rather than just one or two. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bridge pics - I'm not 100% sure whether any of these is the one for us, but see what you think. --Nick (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably my favourite of the 3, a view from the Brooklyn Bridge.

A three bridges pic - is this what was meant above?

Nice colours, but terrible crop - 7:1 is a difficult ratio!

Yeah, the picture with 3 bridges is the kind of thing I was thinking of, though I believe it would look better if we cropped the ugly Verizon building out. I do like the one looking west on the Brooklyn Bridge somewhat. Here's another photo to consider, with two boroughs:

Looking across roofs in Greenpoint to Midtown Manhattan

Not sure what went wrong, but I gave it an attempt. Sorry, I'm sick and way behind in my grading (which I haven't been doing) and can't concentrate on this that much right not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The three bridges pic is okay... it would certainly be improved by cropping out the Verizon building, but more than that, it doesn't have a lot of color or energy. I don't know if that's an issue with the view or that particular pic. The #3 and #4 (I'm imaging it being cropped to show just the skyline) pics I'm just not wild about. The view from Brooklyn Bridge is a pretty good pic, but I have one issue with it: it's obsolete! There's no One WTC or Gehry skyscraper! Those are pretty important additions to the Lower Manhattan skyline. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to get a shot showing the Statue of Liberty's crown and/or torch in the foreground with the Manhattan skyline in the background, but I don't know if one exists. In its absence, how about this? LtPowers (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Powers' try #1

Powers' try #2

That's pretty good (I like #1 since you get more detail of the torch) although it feels pretty generic. There's nothing wrong with generic per se, but I feel like we could go for something much more dynamic for New York City. However, I think you have an excellent banner for the United States of America article. :) PerryPlanet (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys,

Can I steal that first Statue of Liberty pagebanner? I think it's perfect for the New York Metro article (and frankly, I want that new default pagebanner gone). Nick1372 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's in use on United States of America. Sorry! LtPowers (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Too bad. I guess it can't be helped. Nick1372 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Pizza

In this edit, I reverted User:PerryPlanet's addition of Denino's Pizzeria and Tavern to the pizza section, because that section talks solely about New York-style pizza, and Denino's is Italian-style. Then I got to thinking: Why aren't Italian style pizzerias included? They're pretty common in New York City, especially Staten Island. So I am going to propose that the following paragraph be placed at the end of the pizza section:

In addition to the pizza style that calls it home, New York is also a great place to find authentic Italian style pizza. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the borough of Staten Island, which has the highest concentration of Italian-Americans of any county in the country. Some of the finest pickings there include local favorite Denino's Pizzeria and Tavern, the award-winning Pizzeria Giove, and the fantastic Joe & Pat's. There are also great pizzerias outside of Staten Island, including Brooklyn's L&B Spumoni Gardens, known for its Sicilian pizza, and (insert pizzeria here).

I couldn't think of a second great pizzeria outside of Staten Island, I'm hoping someone else can help with that. Otherwise, what do you think? Thoughts, comments, concerns?

Thanks for your time, Nick1372 (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC).

There's a lot of Neapolitan-style pizza in Manhattan, including Keste, Don Antonio, and South Brooklyn (their original branch is indeed in Brooklyn). There's idiosyncratic sort of "new Neapolitan-influenced" at Co. There's also Roman-style at Pala. And then there are a bunch of places in Brooklyn, including the somewhat newfangled style of pizza at Franny's in Prospect Heights. I haven't been to every one of these places, and the list is actually way longer than that (you can look on what used to be slice.com if you want a more complete list) - which is the problem. We can't have a bunch of listings in this long citywide guide. So I'm very reluctant to support you. Also, I know you love Staten Island, and I'd love for the island to be featured as an "Off the Beaten Path" some day, but let's face it: Few tourists are going to go there for pizza, when there's great pizza in every borough. (And parenthetically, I think L&B is somewhere between mediocre and good for pizza, not better than that. I prefer their spumoni to their pizza, in fact.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I can see your points, and you're right. The page is already too bloated to add more listings. Nick1372 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC) (P.S., I haven't been to L&B's in forever, so I may have just forgotten if their pizza was mediocre)

Water quality?

New addition under 'cope':

"The quality of tap water in New York City is considered to be among the best in the nation"

I was under the impression that the water quality in the United States was generally very good. I even heard the water supply in San Fransisco is so good that it doesn't even undergo any treatment. (Not sure if true or not).

I'm curious, is the water in New York better than anywhere else in the states? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality-wise, no. Taste-wise, perhaps, but that's often subjective. Also, water quality issues usually go under Stay safe or Stay healthy -- but in this case I'm not sure since it's not really highlighting any quality issue. Powers ^(talk) 13:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there was a flurry of 'water quality' edits over WV today that often went under 'stay safe' and didn't appear to be actual safety issues in any way. It is great to know that you can drink tap water in New York, although I'd be surprised if it is a revelation to anyone. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What to wear

Perhaps this doesn't belong on WikiVoyage, but as a native, I find it's always easy to tell tourists by what they wear--sometimes embarrassingly so. Is it wrong to have a brief section on what to wear? -- Kosboot (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, we do have a place for that. I argued for and got support for include a "Dress" section under "Cope". See United States of America#Dress, Washington, D.C.#Dress, and Japan#Dress for examples.

But that said, I don't think New York is particularly different from the rest of the U.S. in terms of dress. I wouldn't want to get in to captain obvious advice about not hanging cameras around one's neck to avoid looking touristy. What would you write that doesn't belong at the country level? --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think NYC is rather different: You can always tell tourists because they wear bright or loud colors. It's a well-known winter phenomenon: Get on a subway, and 90% of the people will be wearing black. And what do you do when it's 90 degrees or higher with 78% humidity? I'm far from a fashionista, but I was thinking of having something brief like "If you don't want to stick out like a sore thumb...." (I'm male, but I know that clothing comes under the man/woman divide in Wikimedia projects: men think it's pointless, and women think men are prejudicial because of that attitude.) -- Kosboot (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you're absolutely right that it's very New York to wear black - black leather jacket, black shirt, black or otherwise dark pants. However, that hardly means that New Yorkers never wear colorful clothing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Btw, I think most people don't wear black out of goth or depression, but because it doesn't look as bad if it gets dirty.) There is a time and place for different kinds of outfits - I would think potential tourists either don't care, or do care that they fit in or stick out. But I think it would be kind to give them that option. Another thing: People like to wear sandals. If they wear sandals in NYC all day, they should know to give their feet a thorough cleaning at night. Also nowadays lots of people like wearing flip-flops - I think they're asking for trouble if they wear them on the subway (I've seen many cases of the shoe falling off between the train and the platform as the person boards). So I'm not interested in telling people what to do; rather I want to give them options. -- Kosboot (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indicate subway stations (with bullets)?

I think it would be very helpful to include subway stations for each destination, possibly using service bullets to identify the lines that stop at the station, just like it's done in the infobox for Barclays Center on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Athelwulf (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support this as something very useful to travelers. Let's see what others think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. On the one hand, if consensus did end up going that way, I feel certain we'd want to design a template for this to be used more widely, instead of typing [[File:TediousToRememberFilename.jpg|22px]] about 147 times per page. However, I don't really like the idea because we already use colored, numbered icons in our articles for a different purpose (map links). The problem for me is that, when yet another set of icons is added to the {{listing}} and {{marker}} icons we already use, our sections start to be too liberally sprinkled with multi-colored, numbered icons of too many different shapes and meanings, and they add a lot of visual distraction to the text by making metro line numbers totally eye-popping every time when they don`t necessarily deserve to be eye-popping 147 times per page. This has been tried in a couple of places - see Budapest/Óbuda#Restaurants for an example of what I'm talking about - but I don't like the look. I generally think it better and less confusing to show any official icons just once in the Get around sections only, and leave the rest of the article free of non-map-link icons. It's not as if the reader can't understand "green line" or "line 2" just as well as they can an icon, and with far less visual confusion. Texugo (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I take your points. For a New York-specific point, though, I'd ask everyone to please refrain from using colors to describe subway lines. These are just the colors that have been used on the last couple of generations of MTA subway maps, not the names of any line, and New Yorkers above the age of 40 or so often do not understand them, but instead use official designations like "the Lexington Avenue IRT" or "the Lexington Avenue Line," or simply the letter or number of the line in question ("the 6 [train]," "the 4 [train]," etc.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I was just speaking for any city in general. Here in São Paulo, people call them by the colors. Texugo (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern about the icons being too distracting. I'm rather fond of them, but if I'm the only one, then I can be at peace with plain text.

So what are people's thoughts about just indicating the closest station and the lines that serve it? Athelwulf (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That is definitely always welcome in listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This set of edits by User:Othello95 appears to violate the consensus established here that subway icons are to be avoided due to possible confusion with listing markers. Should we revert? Othello's comments are welcome as well. Powers ^(talk) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. As I don't really have a clear idea of the consensus, you might revert my edit. But keep in mind that if it's for the sake of the reader's convenience (since the above article said that the lines are indicated by colors) and as long as it does not violate the consensus, it is possible to be retained. Keep in mind also that some of the lines have diamond shaped symbols that indicate express trains (CMIIW), so I need help to indicate that. Just my 2 cents. Othello95 (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem, as noted, is that we already use numbers-in-colored-shapes to indicate something else entirely. This could be confusing for the reader. Powers ^(talk) 19:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Trevii website

I see this site was a listing, and is still in the article with a link. I've never heard of it. One good point in its favor is that when I selected a bunch of free and "suggested donation" places, it recommended not buying an attraction pass and correctly stated that it would give no saving. But do we want to promote such sites? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?

Banner currently used in this article

Suggested new alternative banner

Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I gotta admit; that is one snazzy banner.

There's also a bunch of other alternative banners in a section above on this page, so be sure to look at those as well. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a great night photo, and yes, I do prefer it, but I would suggest waiting for at least several days if not a week before making any change, as I can predict that some users will express a preference for the yellow cab picture as more unique and distinctive. I wouldn't agree, though: How can you express "The City that Never Sleeps" better than a great night photo of the unique Manhattan skyline? And lest anyone suggests that yellow taxis are not particular to Manhattan: Now they are, and to Manhattan below 96 St. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yellow cabs can't be found north of 96 or in the outer boroughs? Powers ^(talk) 15:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

They can be, but there are now green cabs that are restricted to picking up passengers in the Outer Boroughs and north of 96 St. in Manhattan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Coffee? Tea?

NY has some of the best coffee and tea places in the US and even the world. If we are to add a few of these places, where would we put them? The drink section mentions alcohol only. Should this have its own section? LesVegas (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Typical practice is to sub-divide the "Drink" section into a "Bars" sub-section and a "Coffeehouses" sub-section (see Culver City#Drink for an example). Just be sure that any listings for individual coffeehouses are placed at the lowest level of the hierarchy, i.e. Manhattan/SoHo instead of New York City or Manhattan. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

This factoid looks like Captain Obvious territory to me. 100,000 is barely more than 1% of the population of New York City. Now, that is significantly higher than in the rest of the country, but it's still very low. Is this really something a traveler needs to be aware of? Travelers should be practicing safe sex anywhere. Powers ^(talk) 01:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I was reading some articles about places in Africa that have this warning in "Stay Safe". I think it's a useful reminder in articles for New York City and San Francisco; otherwise, I'd include it, briefly, only in the overall United States of America article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It is also bad advice. It suggests that you should practice safe sex in places where the HIV infection is high, where the actual appropriate advice should be to practice safe sex wherever you are in the world. (Sure, you may be statistically less likely to meet an infected partner in Kansas city, but that doesn't mean you should take fewer precautions). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So you think if you're specially warned not to leave your wallet and passport in your back pockets in an area where there are many pickpockets, that implies that you should do this dumb thing in other places? Are you now going to suggest that HIV warnings should be removed from all African articles, too? It seems to me, we almost might as well have no "Stay safe" sections if people are going to take the advice in them not to apply everywhere where it isn't explicitly mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Many African nations have a far higher proportion of instances of HIV than New York City, thus warrant mentioning in their respective "Stay safe" sections. I agree with Powers here; in the context of New York, a note like this feels very Captain Obvious. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What percentage of people having HIV do you think is sufficient to warrant a 1-sentence warning? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ikan, you're being unnecessarily hostile and defensive about this. How's about you tone it down a notch? PerryPlanet (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

HIV can be picked up anywhere in the world and can be avoided (or at least mitigated) only by practicing exactly the same safe sex choices wherever you are. You could say that a particular region has such high a prevalence of HIV that abstaining from sex (safe or otherwise) is advisable, but I don't think New York fits that. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm coming across as hostile or defensive. I don't feel either way. I'm just trying to make pertinent points and ask pertinent questions, that's all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew that we only need to warn people if STI rates are so high that having sex at all with locals is ill-advised. Any other precautions a traveler would take in areas with reasonably low rates are definitely Captain Obvious territory. Powers ^(talk) 00:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You might want to look at the phrasings of "Stay Safe" sections in all the articles about places in Africa that counsel safe sex and not abstinence. In any event, please go ahead and revert my edit, as I'm obviously a minority of one on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be categorized just below New York (state)

For a city large enough to have two hierarchical levels of districts, this article should be categorized directly below New York (state). Long Island could be moved to the same level, while Westchester County and Rockland County could be included with Mid-Hudson and Catskills. /Yvwv (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In other words, Metro New York is not needed within the geographic hierarchy. /Yvwv (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. The New York Metropolitan Area is a real thing, though it encompasses large parts of Northern New Jersey and also at least a good part of Fairfield County, Connecticut. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Since it contains three different states, it falls outside the geographic hierarchy. It could remain as an article, however. /Yvwv (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point. Metro New York is probably best as an extra-hierarchical region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"Extra-hierarchical" was the word I was looking for. This reform would give New York (state) ten sub-regions instead of nine, which is still reasonable. NY State defines NYC and Long Island (Queens and Brooklyn counted with NYC) as separate regions, which makes sense due to population, and interest of travellers. http://visitnewyorkstate.net/regions/ /Yvwv (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm actually not sure on this. Westchester County is also part of the Metro New York region. What would you propose to do with it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As said, Westchester and Rockland could go with Mid-Hudson and Catskills. /Yvwv (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. They are in no sense Mid-Hudson, still less Catskills. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the New York State hierarchy, I think it makes more sense to leave it the way it is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the state's geography, I don't think it makes sense to make Long Island a top-level region. Powers ^(talk) 20:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic Maps for Get around section

Shouldn't we add Mapframe Tempalate to show up geocoded Points of Interests(POIs) in the Get around section? Csyogi (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

For huge cities that are sub-divided into smaller districts, standard practice is to usually not include a dynamic map and instead have a static map that shows how the city has been divided into districts. The main reason for this practice is that huge city articles should generally not have many POIs (they should instead by in the district articles), and also that the purpose of the map is to show readers the divisions of the cities, not individual businesses. See also Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition#Current stage: PoiMap2 broader deployment ("Only add dynamic maps to articles at the lowest levels of the article hierarchy: cities, districts, and regions that are not further divided into additional regions."). -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. So, this means Dynamic maps can be included for neighbourhood places like Financial District in Manhattan, right? But it already has a Wikivoyage style static map too, without latest POIs. -- Csyogi (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What it also means is that the Indian regions with dynamic maps to a huge scale probably shouldn't have those. In terms of articles with clear, readable static maps, it would be better to ask one of our map masters like User:Saqib, time allowing, to add any points of interest not yet included in them to the static map, rather than to add a dynamic map, let alone substitute it for a static map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, right, lowest levels of article hierarchy has to be followed for the dynamic map and they're not substituted for awesome wikivoyage style static maps. :) Thanks for all your observations and the guidance in this regard. Happy travelling and editing :) -- Csyogi (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the lowest level of the hierarchy can have dynamic or static maps. But why, in cases in which they have excellent static maps that can simply be updated? There's a practical aspect to this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, will add dynamic maps only where there's no static map. So practically, do you suggest to make a static map if possible than adding the dynamic map? Csyogi (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that it's fine to add a dynamic map to a lowest-level article that has no map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, got it. Thanks! But will also try to make static maps wherever I can :) Happy Holidays. :) -- Csyogi (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Same to you. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Consulates, et al.

I see the following note at the top of the "Consulates" subsection of "Cope":

"Not a complete list"

That's a pity, as a complete list would better serve the traveler. So if anyone would like to do a useful task for this page, do a web search for all the consulates in New York City and get to work. I would start now, but I can't, though I am likely to do some of this work when the inspiration strikes me (or I remember this thread). Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree a complete list is probably better than a partial list, but I still don't think these are necessary. No traveler needs to know the consulates of more than one or two nations; we should index them by country represented, not by the city in which they're located. Powers ^(talk) 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but wouldn't that require a reference article, which we don't do on Wikivoyage? I think listing all the consulates is just as reasonable as listing more stores, restaurants and museums than an individual tourist is likely to go to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it is actually practical to always have a complete list. Some countries have 'semi-official' missions, such as Taiwan. There are plenty of 'honorary' consulates which are official but don't offer any traveler services at all Embassies and consulates also open and close all the time. I wouldn't regard any list on Wikivoyage or otherwise as ever 'complete'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, good point, but essentially complete to the best of our ability. Taiwanese missions are important to include and are real diplomatic missions in all but name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "reference article". I'm thinking an article like Embassies of the United States, or Embassies and consulates of Spain in the United States, with a list of the locations of each one, would be more useful. Powers ^(talk) 19:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say that although consulates are definitely useful to the traveler, I just wouldn't use WV as the definitive reference myself. Perhaps a seperate article would be overkill. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not only overkill but an obvious violation of WV:Avoid long lists. Listings for consulates or embassies in the "Cope" section of a much longer article are one thing; an article that consists solely of a long list of hundreds of diplomatic missions is really not a good idea at all, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And our current lists don't violate the long lists policy? Powers ^(talk) 01:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That's debatable, and I think ttcf wins that debate, but they certainly are not as long as the list of all U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide would be! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but at least those would be in a separate article. Powers ^(talk) 01:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You are proposing changing Wikivoyage policy against creating articles that are just long lists? You might want to bring that up at Wikivoyage talk:Avoid long lists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No policy or guideline is so set in stone that we aren't able to agree on a (consensus) exception -without changing policy- if that really serves the traveller best. In this case, I think Powers has a point. Any given traveller does not benefit from a complete list of embassies in a particular city; they just need to know where the nearest relevant one is. I've always found those lists to be long, and of limited value in our articles. And then New York is really a huge city. Think about the many smaller ones, like the list in our The Hague article, which is even longer, relatively, and still not complete. Frankly, the choice to put these lists in the city articles, and not in the country article, seems strange to start with. An embassy or consulate (regular consulates do offer travel documentation and such) is not a place you decide to visit when you're in town. It's a place you'd look for when you need it and you're in the country. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. And regardless, I'm not aware of any passage in WV:Avoid long lists that has been interpreted by consensus to prohibit articles that consist primarily of lists. Our disambiguation pages are lists. Itineraries are often lists. Itineraries is a long list. Powers ^(talk) 20:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that no-one would decide to visit a consulate while they're visiting another city, nor that it's more useful to list all consulates at in the country article. Think of all the people who fly to Hong Kong and then decide they want to take a separate round trip flight from Hong Kong to any number of countries easily reachable from there. These folks are not going to fly to Beijing but will want to know where the local consulates of those countries are. JuliasTravels, I think you may be thinking about this too much like a European (though that could be a misjudgment on my part, as I'm not sure how to explain Powers' agreement). In most European countries, it's relatively easy to take a train across the country to go to an embassy, and you may need to take your international flight from an airport near the capital in some cases, anyway. In vast countries like the U.S., Canada, Brazil, China, India, Russia and Australia, it's vitally important for people to know where there's a consulate in or near their city. People are not going to go from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. just to go to some country's embassy when that country has a consulate in S.F. In any case, if we're really thinking of creating articles that are just comprehensive lists of diplomatic missions worldwide, I would suggest instead of that to have an article that consists of only links to the website of each country that itself has such lists, whenever such a page exists, plus whatever general country-specific (etc.) comments might be helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that from the perspective of many Europeans, consulates and embassies have become rather redundant. Indeed globally the role of a consulate or embassy in issuing visas has reduced significantly (for example India has outsourced its visa processing to a private company).

However the main purpose of listing these consulates is to provide assistance to travelers in case of a severe emergency such as arrest, hospitalization, natural disasters, terrorism etc, with visa processing an additional useful service when available. Like hospitals themselves, consulates are only useful when you need them, and they may then become very useful. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, that's how I'm seeing it. When you need a consulate, you need yours, and you need whichever one is closest. A list of all the consulates in your current city is not useful for that. Powers ^(talk) 02:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your consulate and the consulate of any country you may need a visa from. And we might as well also mention that you probably don't need information about hotels where you're not staying, restaurants you don't patronize, museums you don't go to... Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is about a European or other perspective. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what Powers and I are saying? We all agree on the use and need of information on embassies and consulates. My point is, however, that in case you need diplomatic assistance, especially when you're in a huge country, having the information on the embassy in a city article is only useful when you happen to be in that city, or already know in which city the nearest embassy or consulate is. Say I'm backpacking in China and I lose my wallet, passport and all other documentation. What I then want to know, is where my nearest consular help line is. I can safely guess that there is an embassy for my country in Beijing, but what I really wanted to know is that there's a consulate (general) for my country in Chengdu (if I'm an Australian, US or Pakistani citizen), or in Dalian (if I'm Japanese or Korean), or perhaps in Qingdao (if I'm Thai). Our choice to list only the official embassies, and then only in the city they're in, seems a bit arbitrary and only of help in a limited range of situations. From that perspective, a different and more complete approach is worth considering. The traveller in Hong Kong looking for embassies of countries he wants to visit would still find what he wants, but then so would the travellers in need who are not in a capital. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(starting at the left again) Well, I think that the first page people will turn to if they need consular assistance now is the page of their home country (something like "Smart Traveler" or the page for the foreign ministry) which will - hopefully - have a full and up to date list of consulates in the country they are currently in. We cannot possibly hope to be as current and up to date on that as people whose job it is to maintain those lists. But listing consulates in city articles is certainly worthwhile for the non-emergency stuff that happens there. Be it applying for a visa or cultural events. I frankly do not see the value in long list articles and as experience with the likes of Metropolitan area airport codes shows, Wikivoyage does an even poorer job of maintaining those types of articles than Wikipedia does and they are neither interesting to read nor interesting to write - something we as not an encyclopedia might wish to keep an eye on. Furthermore, what benefit to anybody is an incomplete and outdated list? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

To address the points in JuliasTravels' last post: I think that the solution is to have a summary in the country article that mentions whether there are embassies in suburbs of the capital as well as the capital city itself and has a complete (or as complete as possible) a linked list of cities where there are consulates. But I think that putting complete listings of all embassies and consulates at the country level will result in such a long list in many countries that it will be a lot less useful than putting the complete listings in the articles for cities. I would offer Bali#Cope and Florida#Cope as examples of the template I'm suggesting we also follow for country-level articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, too. What I'm saying is that the long list of each city's consulates is largely a waste of space. They are not tourist attractions. If you're visiting New York City and want to go to some other country, you don't look to see which country has consulates nearby. "Oh, I was going to go to Belize next, but they don't have a consulate in New York, so let's see what my other options are." I just can't imagine doing that. Far more likely that you already know what country you want to go to and just need to know where the nearest diplomatic mission is. Our city lists are useless for that. That makes consulates and embassies very different from other sorts of traveler services, and so we need a different approach. Powers ^(talk) 03:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Interim suggestion

It looks like the discussion above it going to be long and potentially philosophical. One quick solution I have to articles with long lists of Consulates is basically create a two column table, which uses up less space when viewed on screen or printed. See Seoul#Embassies for an example. Shall I do this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. I also took the liberty to merge the Andorra and Taiwan listings in here as well, because quite frankly they are the same thing even if they have different legal names. Each listing has a description to explain this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Skyscrapers of Wall St.?

From the lede:

from the tunnels of the subway to the skyscrapers of Wall Street

There are some skyscrapers in the Financial District, especially whatever the replacement for the World Trade Center is now officially called, but I don't think of Wall St. in particular as a place of skyscrapers. Which ones are those? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they just meant 'Manhatten' rather than 'Wall Street'? As you say the buildings are tallish, but not skyscapers in that district. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Wall St. is just a street, not the name of a neighborhood. The neighborhood Wall St. is in is the Financial District, which does include some skyscrapers.

I think this passage is an attempt at poetry, but I don't want to sacrifice accuracy for it. I will plunge forward and substitute "Midtown Manhattan and the Financial District". Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Empire State Building was already mentioned in this litany, and that's in Midtown, so scratch that part. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the edit that introduced the improved lede. I'm sure User:PerryPlanet meant "Wall Street" figuratively. Powers ^(talk) 19:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. I was just trying to name-check the really famous stuff. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't use Wall St. figuratively in New York, unless we're referring to the Stock Exchange - which is actually on Wall St. Wall Street's neighborhood is the Financial District. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, feel free to change it. I'm really not that concerned about it. PerryPlanet (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I already did: reworded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the correct resolution depends on whether we want to highlight the skyscrapers or some other property of Wall Street. Powers ^(talk) 19:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"From the tunnels of the subway to the riches of Wall Street"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not bad. It is a little weird to talk about the skyscrapers right after mentioning the Empire State Building. (God I hope no one ever buys the naming rights to that building.) Powers ^(talk) 01:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Perish the thought! I'll make the change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)