Talk:New York City

New article: 2024 Manhattan stabbing spree

2024 Manhattan stabbing spree

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

United States vs. US

@Nikkimaria, you just made extensive edits in which a number of instances of "United States" were replaced by "US". Whether to abbreviate or not is debatable. Although MOS:ABBR states that, for countries, "the name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out", it also notes that "United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality." We need consensus on which form to use (of course specific instances might be allowable exceptions). We can't have "United States" ... "United States" ... "United States" in parts of the article and "US" ... "US" ... "US" in others. Consistency is always important, and to go back and forth like this is unencyclopedic and looks very careless. As points of reference, I see that Chicago and Los Angeles strongly favor "United States", and this would be my own preference. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? --Alan W (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

More important for consistency is to use "U.S." rather than "US". There were numerous cases of "U.S." already in the article, but "US" is almost exclusively used in front of a dollar sign (as in US$1 billion). Station1 (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Station1: as someone who still subphonates (it's my best guide to whether I'm reading something correctly or writing something like this comment euphoniously amd unambiguously) it might be different if U were not a vowel, but US can be unconsciously pronounced as the monosyllabic "Us" as in the magazine US (now more properly "Us Weekly"), rather than as two separate letters.

[As a serendipitous example, I read "wrt", without periods, in @Nikkimaria:'s comment below as "w?rt" or "write" or a misprint instead of as "with regards to". I've taken the unjustifiable liberty of altering her text to expand "wrt" to "with regards to" for the benefit of others who don't text.] —— Shakescene (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a major concern with regards to commonality, since someone who gets that far into the article will certainly understand that US is referring to the United States. On the other hand, repeating the full name over and over is less "formal" and more repetitive. It's not careless to vary phrasing deliberately, and I think there is merit in using the shorter form more often. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my 1976 paperback edition of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage says "United States. Do not abbreviate in stories except in names, designations of highways and quoted matter." —— Shakescene (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems that that guidance is now dated; the latest version of Chicago, for instance, allows use of "US" in text as long as the meaning is clear, which it would seem to be in the cases under discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The Times Manual is not necessarily "dated" because Chicago has its own preferences. Every publisher has its own "house style". What I am trying to say is that, whichever way is agreed upon, we should be consistent. The section "Ethnicity and nationality", for example, has four instances of "United States". "Education" has four instances of "US". It is jarring to have it both ways, unless an exception is made for such things as "US$" where money is mentioned. It makes it look like this article was thrown together piecemeal. Which, in a way, it unavoidably has been. But part of our editing should involve smoothing out these differences. I would be happy to smooth out the differences myself. But I don't want to do any such thing unless some kind of consensus is reached. Oh, and there is also that about "U.S.", as Station1 has noted. That way is still preferred by many in the United States. I think that Shakescene raises some points worth considering as well. However it works out, the one thing I would insist on is a reasonable consistency. --Alan W (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Times manual to verify whether its guidance has changed since 1976, unfortunately, though I would not be surprised to see that it has. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the Times manual, but I just picked up a section of the Times itself, and I see it's "United States" wherever I see the country named. Hmm, in another section, one article uses "U.S." as an adjective. So there must be instances where some variation is permitted. (Note that there it's never "US", always "U.S." when abbreviated there.) Their writers must of course be following the manual. Anyway, although I personally prefer the full "United States", I think we do need to be consistent. Let's pick one style and go with it. Numerous Wikipedia style guidelines insist on consistency, and the way it was done first in a given article should have some extra weight, too. --Alan W (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I wish more opinions had been voiced here. But I think, based on the need for consistency and the slight weighting toward "United States" vs. "US" (with obvious exceptions), I am going to make those changes. --Alan W (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a need for consistency - as noted, varying phrasing is a positive. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It's standard practice in editing. I was a book editor for 15 years, so it's always on my mind. On Wikipedia, though there isn't a single guideline on consistency everywhere, the general tendency is toward consistency, within reason. See WP:Consistency. --Alan W (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:Consistency regards consistency on specific formatting issues, not consistency in general. As you yourself note, the New York Times varies usage - that's entirely reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You know, I don't think we really disagree entirely. What this is here is a formatting issue of a kind. I'm not objecting to varying phrasing. For example, sometimes you might use a "however", other times a "but", that kind of thing. But it really is a no-no in the publishing world to mix up things like "New York", "N.Y.", and "NY", except for well-defined reasons. --Alan W (talk)

But you've already demonstrated that it's not a "no-no", since publications in the real world do vary United States vs U.S./US. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There might have been a specific reason for the "U.S." in that one case. I was just thinking about this some more. This is more to my point: MOS:ABBR. In this case it's also about abbreviation vs. full spelling. But the general idea is the same. "Maintaining a consistent abbreviation style allows Wikipedia to be read, written, edited, and navigated more easily by readers and editors. The style should always be consistent within a page." --Alan W (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In fact variation of "United States" vs US/U.S./USA seems to be quite common among prominent sources, cf. Associated Press, Time, New York Post, The Lancet, etc. It is also common among Featured Articles on Wikipedia, cf Anna Lee Fisher, Pan Am Flight 214, Wiley Rutledge, Matthew Quay, etc. It seems very reasonable to follow those examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed those out. It's certainly worth looking into. But you have to examine the context. I just looked at Anna Lee Fisher. There is variation, but on inspection, you can see that the context matters. "U.S. Secretary of Whatever", for example. But, by itself, "United States". There has to be a reason for the shorter form when the full "United States" is mostly used. I still say it shouldn't be a going back and forth between "United States", "U.S.", and "US" unless there is consistent usage within each kind of case. I see only one "US", "US government". That should probably be regularized to "U.S. government", since it's "U.S. Navy" etc., elsewhere. Featured articles could use a little cleanup, too, in many cases. Alan W (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that, in the Anna Lee Fisher article, there are two kinds of cases. "in the United States" is spelled out. As an adjective, it's "U.S. Army". I see one "United States Air Force", but that should probably be changed to "U.S. Air Force". There has to be some kind of regularity, with a reason, in these cases. --Alan W (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It helps to go back to basics once in a while. Good that this came up. I just looked at the Sunday New York Times, which I have handy now. In one article it's always "United States". Except I do see one "U.S." But, again, and now this is clearer to me, "U.S." is being used adjectivally, in "U.S. Air Force". If you look carefully, there is always some kind of consistency in usage of abbreviated vs. unabbreviated forms. --Alan W (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case - for example, the Time and The Lancet articles have both "the United States" and "the U.S." as standalone entities, and similarly NYPost has both "the United States" and "the US".

If they are different in the same articles, then that is not standard practice. Maybe they could use more consistency. However it might be in those publications, Wikipedia's guidelines suggest the kind of consistency used in the New York Times. I think the rationale I quoted from MOS:ABBR is what we should follow here. --Alan W (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm thinking that if a standard publication has editorial errors, especially on paper, they can't be fixed. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we, as a large team, can continue to polish our articles to the highest degree. Even Featured Articles might be a little sloppy, but here it is always possible to clean things up. --Alan W (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what these examples demonstrate is that consistency is not as highly prioritized as you propose - in print, online, and on Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In practice these days, it might not be. But I worked in publishing for many years, and I know what standard practice always has been. Things might have gotten a little careless in recent years. But Wikipedia's guidelines for abbreviations tell me that the goal is to emulate standard editorial practice. MOS:ABBR tells me that that is the case, and since that practice has been adopted here, that is what I am following. Collectively, we are supposed to be getting Wikipedia to emulate the standards of the old paper encyclopedias. That is the kind of thing we see in guidelines for Featured Articles, and so on. If the guideline for abbreviations said that any may be used in any mixture, I might not like it, but I would have to allow it. But that is not what MOS:ABBR tells me. The goal is to make Wikipedia look as professional as possible. -- Alan W (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that, other than first use, generally "U.S." should be used when modifying a following noun, but "United States" as a standalone noun, e.g. "the U.S. Navy is the largest" but "the largest navy is that of the United States". There can always be exceptions, though. Station1 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a positive compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! I will when I get the chance check again and make modifications accordingly, if needed. Thank you for your input, Station1! Now we can all get on with our Wikipedia lives. :-) --Alan W (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

Add the following to "Further reading":

Wallace, Mike (2017), Greater Gotham: A History of New York City from 1898 to 1919, Oxford university Press ISBN 9780195116359. Lgarrisonf (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ultraodan (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

Typo in 9/11 section - change 'hojacked' to 'hijacked' 2A02:C7C:5CD6:F500:7548:466E:F075:A074 (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Y Seasider53 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)