Talk:New York City Council

message: :There are at least ten-by my count-or more City Council members who don't yet have articles devoted to them, but who arguably deserve them.
:DeBlasio, Gentile, and Monserrate without question, Rivera, Baez and Kendell Stewart as well, with a few others also being at least marginally notable.   
:I created the article on Larry Seabrook, and have tried to add some material to the pre-existing article on David Yassky, but will try to get some of the others started soon. 
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Absent Articles

message: There is also no mention of the "President of the City Council", Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum.
:Wasn't this presidency abolished fifteen or twenty years ago?  Jim.henderson 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Also I see that "The Public Advocate presides over all stated meetings of the New York City Council." but the term "stated meeting" is not defined or its importance described.  Are such meetings special, or are many meetings "stated"?  Jim.henderson (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "President of the City Council"

message: Some type of map of the districts that the city breaks down into would be very very useful. ZueJay (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I want to colour in a map to show the voting on New York congestion pricing, but was sad to discover there is no base map on Wikimedia for it. --Padraic 15:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of the breakdown of council districts

message: The partisan breakdown of the City Council was incorrect and has now been fixed. There are five (5) Republican members as of 2012 -- Council Members Oddo, Ignizio, Koo, Halloran, and Ulrich.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.227.102 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Partisan breakdown

message: Presently, the table shows 45 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 Working Families Party member and 3 vacancies (total 51). Originally, there were 3 Republicans: 2 from Staten Island and 1 from Queens. How should the text (which I may have written) be changed? Should one of the 3 Republican councilmen in the template be flagged or replaced by "Vacant"? —— Shakescene (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacancies and partisan breakdown 

message: i don't wish to become involved in an edit war, but i believe the edits and clarifications i made were constructive, the tags i added are valid and the changes are in line with the guidelines of WP:MOS.  please do not categorically revert an editor's changes.  please explain why all changes (or virtually all changes) were reverted. --98.113.187.11 (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I certainly don't like undoing someone else's hard work, but a batch reversion was the only way I could handle several problems, and I'm sure several good edits that I'd readily support got lost in the process. Breaking up the columns was a good idea which I did follow, but in a less extreme way (four or five short columns are hard to read across in my browser on my screen, for example, but separate columns for each title of presiding officer makes sense.) Expanding the headers on the Council membership table made the table much harder to read, and it wasn't really necessary given the surrounding matter to explain D, R and WF. Don't feel that I (or anyone else) will jump angrily on each edit you make. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  why are valid edits reverted? 

message: Maybe it is difficult to keep track of. Is there a reason the second paragraph says "There are 47 Democratic council members..." when several other places in the article it says 46 Democrats?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisan breakdown redux 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New York City Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622141732/http://www.nyc.gov/html/law/html/about/laws.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/law/html/about/laws.shtml
*Added  tag to http://72.0.151.116/nycnew/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: You are correct that "public advocate" is a title; as such, its capitalization within Wikipedia is covered by its Manual of Style, MOS:JOBTITLES. The MoS does not even capitalize "king", 'emperor" or "pope", except in three very special cases. Please follow WP's style. Chris the speller yack 14:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalizing "public advocate" 

message: Created this map using NYC Open Data. I propose adding it to the page:
- DutchTreat (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Map added into Composition section. - DutchTreat (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Districts

message: Is 2029 correct?  In 2001 and 2003, the two year terms were not affected by the current limits, so there's no precedent. As I understand the law, it is limiting to "two four-year elected terms". Is it two terms, two full-four year terms, two full four-year terms plus extra time (from mid-term specials)? Or just 8 years (plus extra for specials) from election? Most news sources haven't started (or ever!) really addressed this in all the election write-ups. If it's two terms, then the limit is reached in 2025. If it's two full four-year terms, then it's not til 2033 after being elected in 2025 and 2029 (four elected terms!). Or if it's the term that ends after the eighth year in office is reached (my personal interpretation based on the analog of how those who finished prior electeds' terms), then it would be 2029 (three elected terms, plus extra for some), as currently added by 24.189.117.158. Any other thoughts? JesseRafe (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term limits: 2025 or 2029 or 2033 (2021 and 2023 elections for 2 years, not 4) 

message: We should start a section on these to outline what some of them actually do. Wikitikitengo2 (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. They're almost all just "demographic" groups based on self-identity, and the only one with a stance rather than a demographic in its name, like the same one in the U.S. House, the "progressive" caucus is just a label for those who wish to be in it, not a strong barometer of progressivism or a stance on an issue. Same for the Women's, BLAC, Irish, Jewish, LGBT - just an open entry and then what? Just don't think they're useful to be described here or even if we did, what reputable sources write anything substantive about them? JesseRafe (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please join the discussion here if you would like to expand the caucus section with additional information. JesseRafe (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucuses 

message: Can someone explain why the majority and minority whips are listed in the infobox? I'm curious as to why it's done here but not in articles about state legislatures. Derpytoucan (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whips in infobox