This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New York City This template is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles

Simply place the template on a page; it does the rest—unless the page doesn't have <references /> or ((reflist))—the template uses inline citations. mynameinc (t|c|p) 23:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've often thought about adding densities, but that would require two extra columns, one for people per square mile and one for people per square kilometer, which would make this deliberately-simple mini-chart a little bigger and more complex than I'd like. A wider chart would also be harder to slide naturally in next to the map in each information box. One alternative I've considered is to list each borough's rank among U.S. counties in pop. density (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and I think 29th for Staten Island), since that doesn't vary with the measurement unit. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You typed about a chart. You gave no reason for not including densities in a paragraph. I thought these articles are suppose to be about being informative. You remove information. You are a rude & terrible editor & deserve a smack in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.38.25 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the purpose of the different colors for the boroughs? It's confusing since transcluding pages Five Boroughs and New York City have a map with a different coloring scheme. I'd say remove the coloring here. Daggerbox (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand the problem and the confusion. It's the scheme I started for New York City mayoralty elections and have since used elsewhere, because the colors in the New York City map (especially the dark blue and purple) are too dark to use as background for text. I originally used a separate chart with matching just for New York City, but that got changed by another user who's currently blocked. I think I'll just go back and restore the matching-color table there. This template doesn't conflict with any of the borough articles, as you can see, because of the complicated coding that changes the borough's coloring to chocolate to match the chocolate of that borough's map. A long run project of mine is to change each borough map's color from chocolate to the one in the main template. This would allow me to change the conditionals in the template to "New York City" to match those colors. Alternatively we could change the colors in the New York City map to match the template, but that will take a little work.) Hope this isn't too confusing. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. You have the better perspective on the big picture, but I will offer my opinion from a data visualization perspective for your consideration. I don't see a benefit to coloring the boroughs in New York City mayoralty elections or elsewhere. In tables, the borough names are clear and they occupy the same relative position, which I think is sufficient for distinction. If you do need color (such as for coordination with unlabeled data), please choose less saturated colors. Daggerbox (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments. That's something I've also thought about. The reason I chose primary (or saturated) colors was not accidental or whimsical but came from their origin at New York City mayoral elections. I wanted to distinguish the more-muted or secondary shades used for political parties from those of particular boroughs, so it wouldn't seem as if the Bronx automatically leans Republican (very far from the case!) or Queens Green. My mind has wobbled both ways in the last two years over whether the bright colors are attractive or just gaudy (they do mirror the style, if not the content, of subway signs, so they suggest a hint of New Yorkishness). Although the question, in my opinion, doesn't need a Wikipedia:Request for comment or a straw poll, I'd certainly pay attention if several other readers or editors felt the same as you do.

As for the table at New York City, I did try last night to restore the colors that matched the map's, but was too sleepy to do so successfully. In general those colors are much more muted since I was trying to make the overlying text visible. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S., I made another try that seems to be more successful; see New York City#Boroughs —— Shakescene (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all due respect, the original color scheme creates confusion when this template is used in the article, "Borough (New York City)". Perhaps two separate templates should be made, one for the mayoral elections, and one for the borough article. Vereverde (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me look into that. Originally, this was a table that I just copied to different articles. User:Mynameinc converted it to a template to save space, but I could certainly dig up the table I made that matches the Borough Map colors and paste it into Five Boroughs and any other articles that use that map. (Or you could find that alternate map by digging through the edit history of New York City and then copy and paste in place of the template.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I just did that, which has the additional advantage of matching the same order and numbering as the map's, plus some miscellaneous tweaks (e.g. darker shading for the words) at Borough (New York City). Hope this meets the needs you saw. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of changing the colors to match the map and graph commonly shown with this table to eliminate confusion. —— widgetkid (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E.g. Manhattan, Brooklyn. Facts707 (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is GDP per capita included here? Its not representative of anything about the boroughs - because so many people commute into Manhattan, contributing to the GDP of Manhattan but the population of their home borough. This totally ruins GDP per capita as a meaning metric of average income - another one should be found. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur, the column should be removed as it is unreferenced, original research, and is also meaningless. If there's no objection I will go ahead and remove it.--108.14.233.183 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not remove without a consensus to do so. I believe it is a valid stat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why is it a valid stat? have you seen this stat anywhere else? it's the ratio of two unrelated numbers, one is the gdp generated by the people who work in each borough, divided by the number of people who live in the borough. show me a publication that states nyc boroughs' gdp per capita, or this is original research--50.122.204.73 (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OR allows one to do simple math. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i am not disputing the math, and i commend your division skills, i am disputing the meaningfulness of this number. i argue that this number, although mathematically correct, is meaningless. you haven't shown any publication that cites this number. in spite of being so easy to derive, for some reason no respectable publication has found it fit to be mentioned, and yet you insist that it must be in this template. you haven't countered my contention that it is meaningless and you haven't countered my contention that it is original research.--50.108.214.2 (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, then, I plain don't understand, because the meaningfulness is abundantly obvious to me, and I think to most people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i'll explain again -- gdp refers to the product of people working in a borough and population refers to people living in a borough. you are therefore dividing two unrelated numbers. if roughly all people who work in a place also live in that place, and vice versa, then this stat does make sense, which is why this is a relevant stat in countries and to some degree also states and provinces. but when you take a single county in a large metropolitan area you get nonsensical numbers like the number for manhattan, where most who work there and contribute to manhattan's gdp don't live there, or the outer boroughs where about half of the people who live there don't work there and contribute to other counties' gdp (mostly manhattan). see for example this. so if the meaningfulness is abundantly clear to you, please explain the logic of dividing a number that refers to people who work in a place by a number that refers to people who live in a place when these two sets of people are very different. and also please explain why this number that is so abundantly clear to you doesn't seem at all noteworthy to any published statistician or geographer in the world.--50.122.202.117 (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

are there any outstanding objections to removing the column? if so, what are they?--108.14.233.183 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there are. The stats provide valuable and interesting information, and there is no consensus to remove them, outside of a singe IP editor using multiple IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you have not responded to any of my questions. there is no consensus to keep these "statistics" either. please engage in this debate or stop blocking moving forward on this.--108.14.233.183 (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

since you are not engaging in a discussion, there is no way to establish consensus. please do not reinstate this meaningless, original-research statistic without discussing it and arriving at consensus.--108.14.233.183 (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A consensus has already been established, which is to say that there is no consensus for removing the data. You're now edit warring against consensus, whch can end with your being blocked from editing. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine calculations clearly states: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". there is no consensus that the division of these two unrelated numbers is a meaningful reflection of the sources. therefore it is original research. Beyond My Ken has not responded to this point and to my extensive explanation of this point, except for stating that the meaningfulness is abundantly obvious to him, and to most people, he thinks.--108.14.233.183 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The GDP data was added to the template in this edit made on January 30, 2019, that is, two years ago. Since then, there have been approximately 23 edits to the template before you attempted to remove it. That two years where the GDP was the status quo ante, and the 20-odd edits where no one else tried to remove it, or objected to it on the talk page, creates a de facto consensus for the inclusion of the data. It also creates an onus on you to show that there is not a consensus for the data to be included, which you have failed to do.

What you are doing now is called WP:Wikilawyering, and it is not looked well upon, because it is the place people go to when they're not getting what they what through normal transparent processes. I have advised you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and I repeat that advice now. You are doing yourself no favors by attempting to get what you want by ultra-technical means when you have been unable to find a consensus. Please stop, you are on shaky ground. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i wish Beyond My Ken spent a fraction of the energy they expend on finding threatening wikipolicy pages aimed at me and actually addressed the issue, which still stands.--108.14.233.183 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the issues have been answered - you obviously don't like the answers, but that's not relevant.

My final word: any editing of this template which is done against consensus will be reverted, and any edit warring against consensus will be report to ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beyond My Ken, you have not addressed the main issue (and if you have, please point it out as i must have missed it): you are dividing two incompatible numbers, one that refers to the economy of a county and one that refers to the population of a county. this is the heart of the matter and your only response (except for various threats) has been "i plain don't understand". it doesn't seem like you have the patience or the capacity to address this matter with any degree of coherence.

regarding consensus, so far there are two who dispute this number (myself and the original poster). i've requested a third opinion, hoping that this will shed some more light on this matter. i want to make it clear that i have no intention of dropping this matter until it is addressed by people who actually do understand that one cannot just divide any two numbers and expect to produce a meaningful figure.--108.14.233.183 (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I offer a third opinion. I agree with Beyond My Ken; this is permissible simple arithmetic and not OR. I also agree with the other party or parties; this computation, which divides the economic value produced by the people who work in an area by the (very different) resident population of that area, is not useful or illuminating. The point may be better made by description of the characteristics of the area. In the specific circumstances, in order to include this computation, I would ask for evidence that suitable academic sources commonly find it useful. In the meantime I strongly suggest removing it. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks!--108.14.233.183 (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beyond My Ken, now that another person has weighed in, and since the editor who originally added this to the table hasn't produced any justification, can you accept that the consensus is that this division does not produce a meaningful statistic?--108.14.233.183 (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

per consensus, i will move forward and remove the column.--108.14.233.183 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]