Talk:New York, New York (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Topics from 2004-2008[edit]

As a mailing address[edit]

In mailing addresses, "New York, New York" refers only to the county of New York (i.e. the Borough of Manhattan, which is composed of the island of Manhattan, other islands in the East River such as Roosevelt and Randall's Islands, and a very small section of the mainland called Marble Hill).—128.59.229.164 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 June 2004

Primary use as city/state[edit]

  • This is curious, as "New York, New York" I thought would first refer to the "City, State" like "Los Angeles, California", as is the case with most addresses. Play it safe and just write "New York, New York, New York" -Matthew238 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 November 2005
    • OK, yeah, it is curious, but that's all it is. This usage appears only in mailing addresses, and in any other context whatsoever "New York, New York" means the city. --Russ (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be applicable to folks who are not familiar with New York City, as I'm sure most people located in Antartica would possibly refer to "New York, New York" as simply New York City, but no one from New York refers to New York which is the alternate name for Manhattan (as it is New York County). New York has had this name for hundreds of years, whereas the other boroughs were included in 1898. New York, New York refers specifically to the borough of Manhattan. As a former Manhattanite I would add that that is how you get mail in Manhattan. It does not apply to Brooklyn or Staten Island or any of the other boroughs...Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, as a post office name it refers to Manhattan only, and this is mentioned as the first bullet on the dab page. But New York, New York redirects to New York City, so that backlink must appear on the top of the dab page. This has been extensively discussed in the past. Station1 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debate about requesting move in 2006[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

New York, New York (disambiguation) → New York, New York — There is no primary meaning of this 4-word phrase. Georgia guy 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Support - I agree with Georgia guy. —Mets501 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Having been born in New York, New York, I am pretty damn sure that there is a very well-known primary meaning for that term. And if you don't like it, get outta my way. :) --Russ (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The common name of the city is New York City, which is where the article is titled, and which everyone knows the city as. It is most likely that anyone who wants to search for the city would want to type New York City. Georgia guy 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - insufficient justification. "New York, New York" is a standard designation of New York City, and of Manhattan in particular. I don't see the reason for this change, but I'd be willing to change if it could be explained better. -Will Beback 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "New York, New York" is used almost exclusively in either writing an address or singing with the Sinatra tune. Show me that it is a very common name independent of these 2 special cases. Georgia guy 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Writing an address is a very common usage. I don't see why that is excluded as a special case. Readers accustomed to writing letters would likely search on that term. Is there a harm cause by the current arrangment that needs to be corrected? -Will Beback 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the reasoning is insufficient. --Yath 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There was a huge brouhaha about where to put the article on the city. You can read some of it here but there was even more. A substantial body of opinion wanted the city's article at New York, New York. That's what would be typed by a reader who was familiar with Wikipedia's "Cityname, Statename" naming convention for articles about U.S. cities and who didn't know that NYC was an exception. "New York, New York" as a reference to the city is far more common than all the other meanings combined, so it should redirect to the article about the city. JamesMLane t c 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why reopen this can of worms without a compelling reason? Every single alternative usage is derived from the city or the county. Retain the redirect to the city. –Joke 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Refers specifically to Manhattan as per the postal service. — CharlotteWebb 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That implies that Manhattan is the primary meaning. However, this doesn't agree with the status quo of a re-direct to New York City. Georgia guy 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should probably redirect to Manhattan after all, but we are not here to discuss that. A disambiguation page at a title which is a verbatim postal address would give undue weight to the derivative topics, including but not limited to the nadir of Scorsese's career. Show tunes and other artistic works are always secondary to geographical locations, and that's a fact. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All other city/town entries in Wikipedia are in the City, State format. New York City is inconsistent and "breaks" searches. New York City should be a redirect entry to "New York, New York". —QuicksilverT @ 03:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Here are some examples: Copenhagen, Istanbul, Philadelphia, Chicago, Montréal, Mexico City. It breaks searches? Which, pray? –Joke 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

This requested move is a little thin on justification. Would someone (Georgia guy?) mind explaining it more? --Yath 22:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the above comment I made in response to the first vote to oppose. Any objections?? Georgia guy 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I was getting at was, what other meaning than New York City could New York, New York have? Ok, some anon comments above mention it means the county of New York, in mailing addresses. Not the most prominent meaning if you ask me. --Yath 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia guy's position just plain misses the point. Yes, "New York, New York" can have several meanings -- a city, a song, a Vegas hotel -- but it has one clear primary meaning. If supporters of this proposal are serious, they should specifically address the criteria given on Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. --Russ (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is the city the primary meaning of this phrase?? Georgia guy 13:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G.g., there are over 2300 (estimate) pages on Wikipedia that link to New York, New York. Perhaps if you read some of those pages and see what the editors thought the phrase refers to, you would understand. --Russ (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please include only pages in the article namespace. Georgia guy 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gee, then there are only 2179. My bad. Russ (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New York City[edit]

FWIW, re the preceding Move debate, few people outside the U.S. would refer to NYC as "New York, New York", unless as a deliberate nod to the song. The "city, state" convention it springs from is hardly recognised. Most people would assume the song and movie title was just reduplication akin to, say, Monday, Monday or Louie Louie . Not that I oppose the current nomenclature or want another vote or anything, just thought someone might like to know. jnestorius(talk) 07:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York, New York specifically identifies the Borough of Manhattan. "New York City" refers to all five boroughs of the City of New York. Please stop arbitrarily reverting my LEGITIMATE edits! This means you, JamesMLane! 24.168.116.169 (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topics from 2009-2010[edit]

Retrofit talk-page year headers[edit]

11-July-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2004" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I dated the unsigned comments and retro-named 3 entries (including "As a mailing address" & "Debate about requesting move in 2006") in date order from 2004. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted as term[edit]

11-July-2009: To clarify the wording, I have quoted the phrase (as the term "New York, New York"). Although quoting the title term is rare in disambiguation pages, the demarkation using the quotemarks will help to clearly indicate the phrase, rather than seem a text repeat of "New York". Also, quoting on the 1st line prevents the typesetting river of 2 consecutive lines each beginning with the repetition of "New York" (as a block of 4 repetitions). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Any problems on how the link on this page to the city article should be?? If you really think it's important for it to link to New York, New York as opposed to New York City, please put an HTML comment revealing the reason. Georgia guy (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus about the definition of New York, New York seems to exist on Wikipedia, and this DAB page should reflect that[edit]

Prior to 1898, 'New York, New York" could have only referred to New York City. Since then, it has had only one official definition, and that is for New York County, which is better known as the Borough of Manhattan.

In my experience growing up as a 4th generation Brooklynite, "New York, New York" always meant Manhattan. Not just in postal terms, but colloquially. My experience, of course, is not valid grounds with which to make editing decisions on Wikipedia. I mention it because it is no more, or less, valid than any attempt to assert that "New York, New York" is primarily used to define New York City. Such an assertation is devoid of fact, and reflects bias.

Given the unique nature of New York City, it seems inappropriate to force how Wikipedia represents it into a narrow taxonomic guideline. Do so seems to redefine New York City with Wikipedia as a kind of circular reference.

Rather than completely rehashing previous discussions, it is my view that the three dominant definitions of "New York, New York" be given equal weight at this time in this DAB page's lead. They are

  • The City of New York, in the U.S. state of New York.
  • The borough of Manhattan only
  • The postal town of New York, NY (Manhattan)

NYCRuss ☎ 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus that the "postal town" is a noteworthy and verifiable concept?   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the wrong forum for concern about POV. This is only a dab page, so it just reflects the navigational facts as they currently exist on WP. New York, New York is currently merely a redirect to New York City, which is the primary topic for the term. As long as it is, MOS:DAB suggests one bluelink from the redirect on the top line, followed by one bluelink for each of the next most likely sought other articles. It doesn't make sense to have four bluelinks in a row going to only two articles (NYC-Manhattan-NYC-Manhattan). And there is simply no such thing as a "postal town". Also, piping links is generally discouraged for dab entries. If you prefer a format at the top something like
New York, New York may refer to:
New York city, in New York state
The name of the post office serving the borough of Manhattan only
New York-New York Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas
I can certainly live with that as an exception to style guidelines. If that's OK let me know. Station1 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comma[edit]

WP:COPYEDIT says:

  • Location constructions such as Vilnius, Lithuania require a comma after the second element, e.g., He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania"," after the country had gained independence.

New York is a noun, the name of a city, and New York is another, the name of a state. They do not together make one noun. Inglok (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that a comma is therefore required after New York, New York. This is standard practice and is recommended as such by every American style guide. Inglok (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may make sense to use a comma for the city, but there are fourteen other entries there and to my mind it is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to give preference to one over the others. It is grammatically incorrect to include a comma there and if it says otherwise on WP:COPYEDIT I will be raising hell on that page's talk page.--Launchballer 11:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean when you say "it may make sense to use a comma for the city"? And what do the fourteen entries have to do with this? And to give "preference"? Please explain, and try to refute the central point. Inglok (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will re-instate the comma according to WP:COPYEDIT. Inglok (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Eight fucking hours later...) "New York, New York" should have quotation marks around it, making it into a noun because we are describing it. As a result, adding a comma there is grammatically incorrect.--Launchballer 22:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the instance at the top of the page, the one after which I put a comma, or to any of the others below it? Inglok (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the one at the top.--Launchballer 23:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it have quotation marks around it? I can describe London, England, as a very nice place, but I don't have to surround it with quotation marks. If you have time today I urge you to do some research on appositives, particularly non-restrictive appositives. There's a long discussion on my talk page about them. Inglok (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that you agree, but we are describing the noun "New York, New York" not New York, New York if that makes sense.--Launchballer 15:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. New York is a noun, the name of a city, and New York is another, the name of a state. They do not together make one noun, regardless of whether they are surrounded by quotation marks. Inglok (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the quote marks around the comma after Lithuania in my sentence above? Inglok (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I use syntax highlighter and it was making a mess of it. Anyway, a disambiguation page begins with a noun, as if to say "Noun (is/may refer to)". Where does it say otherwise?--Launchballer 20:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that a disambiguation page must start with a noun? Inglok (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I think I meant when it's in the sentence 'can also refer to' you take the literal string "New York, New York" and disambiguate that.
I've had another look at MOS:DABPRIMARY. I read it as "the literal string should be used - admittedly not in quotation marks, but in bold - because it's the thing being disambiguated", but I want your take on it.--Launchballer 11:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read MOS:DABPRIMARY and it doesn't say anything specific about punctuation. Inglok (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems strange beginning an disambiguation page with something other than the title. Is it worth putting in a Request for Comment?--Launchballer 10:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to work through some examples to illustrate my point. Let's say we would like to write something about London. Let's imagine that this isn't for Wikipedia, but a project we're working on somewhere else. Our first sentence starts with this:
London is a very nice place...
We acknowledge that our audience may not be British, and we know that most of them are from Ontario in Canada. We decide, therefore, to start our page with:
London, England, is a very nice place...
In the sentence above, England is said to be in apposition with London. An appositive is a noun or noun phrase that modifies another noun or noun phrase. To be exact, England is a non-restrictive appositive, a part of the sentence that can be missed out while the sentence still makes sense. A comma is required after England to show the reader the end of the appositive.
Now we decide to have the first two words in bold.
London, England, is a very nice place...
Now that we have the first two words in bold we shouldn't just miss out the comma altogether. It should stay there because it serves a purpose, as explained above.
All of this applies to English writing wherever it may be. There is no exception for articles and disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. To my knowledge, no published authority on the English language contradicts what I've said here. For an accessible explanation of appositives on the internet, see this.
I'm happy to put in a Request for Comment if you think it's necessary. Inglok (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I can see where you're coming from - you see the second New York as an appositive, which would necessitate a comma. I'm seeing it differently - I'm looking at the whole phrase as a noun, because this page is a page on "New York, New York" and thus it seems necessary to take it that way. Yes, please do put an RfC in.--Launchballer 12:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before I put in an RfC, please – I'm very curious – explain, with references, if you can, how the conjoining of city and state makes one noun. I think you'll need to show this to be the case, beyond doubt, for others to share your opinion. Inglok (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's because this is an article about the term "New York, New York" and not the city New York - if this was an article on New York City, then yes it would require another comma. Is Wikipedia:Template messages/General#In introductory lines any good at explaining it? Although, to be honest, I really don't think we're going to agree on this - hence my suggestion of an RfC.--Launchballer 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think finally you have fully revealed your argument. But it is flawed, and it is proved so by the opening sentence of the disambiguation page itself: "New York, New York, refers to New York City in the state of New York." The page doesn't refer to "New York, New York" as some very abstract subject. It is a city, in a state, and that much is clear from that sentence. If we were referring to it as something abstract, we would enclose it with quotation marks – I think this is what you were saying earlier – but this is not the case here.

I'm afraid the link in your last reply wasn't of any use. It doesn't shed any light on our disagreement at all.

I'll try to get an RfC going, but I admit I've never done it before. Inglok (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. So the following would be correct:
New York, New York, refers to New York City in the state of New York.
New York, New York may also refer to:--Launchballer 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be: "New York, New York" may also refer to... Inglok (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we still go ahead with an RfC? Inglok (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have it sorted.--Launchballer 17:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. I enjoyed our discussion, anyway! All the best. Inglok (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piping links[edit]

We generally don't pipe links in dis-ambiguation pages except to indicate links to songs or the like where we need to italicize or give quotation marks to the text the link forms but not the link itself. The first link in this dis-ambiguation page goes to New York City, and we want it clear from the text that that's where it should go. But User:DigbyDalton disagrees; they think that this link should be piped. Any thoughts anyone has here?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that we generally don't pipe links on dab pages, and DigbyDalton also has a point that the redirect says "New York", not "New York City". However, the whole issue is avoided by linking the redirect itself in the first sentence, as recommended at MOS:DABPRIMARY: "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article". I'm going to be bold and do that, but anyone who disagrees, feel free to revert. Station1 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can go along with that. Looks good now. Thanks DigbyDalton (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue Of Liberty[edit]

The Statue Of Liberty was a gift from France for the United State's 100th Birthday It was from a guy who planed it it took a lot of work for the workers to finish it. Tivian Yeung (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York,_New_York_(disambiguation)&oldid=1204270492"