Talk:New York City/Archive 5

message: I changed the wording of the history summary slightly regarding Native Americans. I thought the existing wording could be read to imply that we only know about Native American inhabitants because of the archaeological evidence, which is obviously not true. I linked explicity to Lenape, and I also threw in a mention of Giovanni da Verrazano and Henry Hudson, since it seemed to be that even summary of NYC history would be lacking without a mention of them. -- Decumanus 03:29, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
:Also, it some of it could be to History of New York City.  Considering that NYC is a big topic, it seems that the history article should have the main content and the section be an overview. --Jason McHuff 01:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjusting history section 

message: I'd like to restore the picture that had been in the "Skyline" section, and remove the pic of Columbia University (which I had added myself last week). In terms of relevance to the article, I think this is a better way of prioritizing. It's also a nice picture to close the article with. --Jleon 14:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of a skyline photo, but maybe we could find a more recent one? The skyline looks kinda different now. Páll 02:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How the hell can you have an article on NYC without a photo of the Trade Centers both standing and collapsed! That attack made such a major impact to life in the city, and the nation in general.  ALKIVAR™ 02:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skyline pic 

message: ::the reason all the pics are of Manhattan is because the tourists who are going on vaccation, then posting these pics are afraid to leave manhattan
--I think JimWae made a very good point in the earlier discussion about how all of the photos here are of Manhattan. I think a big part of the problem is that there are hardly any photos even in the boroughs' respective articles. Does anyone have any good pics of the other boroughs that they can share? If not, perhaps I'll take some myself in the coming weeks. --Jleon 16:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked through all of the photos that I have in iPhoto, and I don't have any from outside of Manhattan. I'm actually really surprised about that. I have a couple of AirTrain, but I don't think those would help the New York City article. I can go out and take some tomorrow, but I think its supposed to snow. Maybe one of Grand Army Plaza? Williamsburg Bridge? Páll 02:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have many, many photos of Staten Island, some of which I get around to uploading in the near future, and also many of Brooklyn street festivals.  There are probably at least a few decent ones in the bunch. -- Decumanus 03:52, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
I've got some neat photos I took from the air of Central Park (with Christo's Gates) that I'd be happy to upload, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how that works.  Can somebody point me in the right direction for instructions to upload pix?  --RoySmith 02:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manhattan-centric photos 

message: ::How exactly is the culture section complete?? It says rude, self centered, and then goes on to talk about upstate new york?????
I mostly finished my condensing here and I think trimmed it by 50%.  The only thing I didn't keep was the ref to Robert Moses.  It really fits better under history or infrastructure or somewhere else anyway, so let's get it in there.  Kaisershatner 16:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture of New Yorkers

message: I appreciate the effort to summarize, but isn't this just duplicating the purpose of :Category:New York City, and then in a non-hierarchical, limited, and arbitrary way?  All of these topics, and many more, are already categorized in an broader organized structure.--Pharos 03:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. This gives a fairly clear idea of some of the major topics that are available about NYC, and tables like this are used all over the place on other country and city articles. Páll 03:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City related topics box 

message: I propose we take a vote about how to either clean up or replace the images on this page. I'm going to list all the current images on the NYC article below, and then I think we should discuss whether or not they should stay on the page or if we should find better quality images of the same thing to replace them, or replace them entirely. Or, alternatively, move then to other parts of the article. This is to help us make room for more non-Manhattan images, and to streamline the images on the page to make sure they're exactly what we want.
===== :Image:Midtownnyc4.jpg =====
I quite like this image, the only issue is that it seems very similar to Image:Midtownsouthnyc.jpg, so perhaps we might want to decide which one to use and replace one? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent a lot of time making these series of images for the New York articles. They are already 300px, the standard size we tend use for inline maps in Wikipedia, and  which is pretty much the upper limit for width in an article (note I generally make maps for viewing in line, not as thumbnails to be enlarged and viewed on the image page itself). I don't think any more detail should appear in the wording, since it would become quite crowded, and harder to read. I experimented quite a bit optimal size of text, amount, etc., to remain uncluttered and found, for my purposes, that this worked best, to emphasize the boroughs and the contrast between land and waterways. I would not be adverse to a more detailed image in addition to this, for parts of the city, but anything on a finer grained scale is going to wind up not taking in the five boroughs. -- Decumanus 05:10, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
===== :Image:City_Hall_2.jpg =====
This is one GREAT image! Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: How would a photo from Chinatown or Flushing be diverse?? They'd all be from the same race. The point of this photo is that New York is a melting pot in which people of all races interact with and are surrounded by each other.  The photo is pretty diverse, in my opinion, and pretty typical of a Manhattan street scene.  It's good to have photos of people on a page with lots of photos of things.  Moncrief 21:38, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
===== :Image:New_York_Stock_Exchange_Flags.jpg =====
Great image, but maybe some images of Wall Street would be better? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: An encyclopedia is meant to reflect what is.  If there are new buildings in the LES, and there are, then why not include new buildings in a photo of the neighborhood?  That being said, it's not a particularly remarkable image so why not take a better one of your own?  Moncrief 21:38, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
--To be honest, I can tell you that isn't even a new building anyway. Its exterior certainly looks refurbished, but new residential buildings in NYC never have fire escapes, and you can tell by the window insets that very think masonry was used in its construction. Personally, I think the photo is just fine, but one of SoHo could be just as good. --Jleon 01:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with that. If you can take a beautiful one, then you are a true master. From my experience, the light inside is quite dim with those dull yellow walls, and photography that captures the essence of the interior space is very tricky. There's a reason the classic high-contrast light streaming through the windows shot from the New York Times you see in posters are so enduring in their appeal (BTW taken 1935, so under copyright). -- Decumanus 02:23, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
===== :Image:South_ferry.jpg =====
I really like the idea of this image, but I think perhaps we could do something like have an image of Union Square at rush hour, because you can look down from the mezzanine and see all the people. Or, if we want to concentrate on "outer borough images", maybe one of Boro Hall station?
--I agree. The chain-link barriers in this photo are not at all represenative of the subway system and you can't even see any people on the platform. It's definetly not an informative image for people who have never been to NYC. --Jleon 13:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Clean Up Vote 

message: I quite like this image, the only issue is that it seems very similar to Image:Midtownsouthnyc.jpg, so perhaps we might want to decide which one to use and replace one? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Midtownnyc4.jpg]] 

message: I like this one, but I also think that there should be some images of earlier NEw York. Maybe some paintings? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Uss_los_angeles_airship.jpg]] 

message: I'm not sure this image is necessary, it seems more appropriate for the Empire State Building Wiki. I think that we should have some other 1930's-1960's images of New York, perhaps some from another borough? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Constructempire.gif]] 

message: This is a really nice image, but my only concern is that it is very similar to Midtownnyc4.jpg. Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Midtownsouthnyc.jpg]] 

message: This is one GREAT image! Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:City_Hall_2.jpg]] 

message: I like this, but maybe we should have a few photos of the geographic features of New York (Colisters, the seashore, Palisades) instead of this? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Ny.terra.600pix.jpg]] 

message: Great image, but maybe some images of Wall Street would be better? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:New_York_Stock_Exchange_Flags.jpg]] 

message: I really dislike this image. I think there are some instances in the Lower East Side of more traditonal housing stock so that you can really see the architectural detail. The building on the corner is a new building. Maybe we should try and get some other images from the Lower East Side, or maybe some of "SoHo"-style buildings? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia is meant to reflect what is.  If there are new buildings in the LES, and there are, then why not include new buildings in a photo of the neighborhood?  That being said, it's not a particularly remarkable image so why not take a better one of your own?  Moncrief 21:38, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
--To be honest, I can tell you that isn't even a new building anyway. Its exterior certainly looks refurbished, but new residential buildings in NYC never have fire escapes, and you can tell by the window insets that very think masonry was used in its construction. Personally, I think the photo is just fine, but one of SoHo could be just as good. --Jleon 01:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:OrchardandRivington.JPG]] 

message: This is a great image, I'm not too concerned about the "brownness" at the end. Maybe this is the one that should go in the introparagraph? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Libertyskyline.PNG]] 

message: I like the idea of this image, but I think we could try to get some photos that aren't at sunset, because this one is very dark. Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:HarlemBrownstones.JPG]] 

message: A great image, but I think it could be made smaller. Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Empirestatebldg.jpg]] 

message: This is a fantastic image, I love it. Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:MET_NYC.jpg]] 

message: Hmm.... I'm not too sure about this one. Maybe a photograph of that crazy corner with the Washington Mutual ad with the giant beanstock on 42nd and 8th would be better, because its much brighter. Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Timessquare.jpg]] 

message: I like this, maybe we could try to find an image of the outside of a stadium during the day time? Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Yankee_stadium.jpg]] 

message: I really like the idea of this image, but I think perhaps we could do something like have an image of Union Square at rush hour, because you can look down from the mezzanine and see all the people. Or, if we want to concentrate on "outer borough images", maybe one of Boro Hall station?
--I agree. The chain-link barriers in this photo are not at all represenative of the subway system and you can't even see any people on the platform. It's definetly not an informative image for people who have never been to NYC. --Jleon 13:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:South_ferry.jpg]] 

message: I'll try to take an image of taxi's going down Fifth Avenue to try to hit two birds with oen stone, an image of 5th Ave (big landmark) as well as the taxis. Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Taxis_NYC.jpg]] 

message: I think this image is just too old. The skyline has changed quite a bit since then. Páll 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Midtown.jpg]] 

message: After several rounds of editing (and just now moving huge sections of Talk to an archive) I see no sig. change in article size.  I'm no expert on this, but I'm guessing it's because of the images.  Is that true?  Is the best way to cut the article size for us to resolve the picture-related discussion as above?  Just wondering.
Kaisershatner 15:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Length

message: I think I accidentally doubled the page size and I can't revert due to access problems.  Help!  Kaisershatner 15:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert it!

message: I LOVE the new history photo, JLeon - very evocative and a nice addition, imo.
Can anyone take some photos of sights and scenes in the outer boroughs and put them on this site?  Someone mentioned well above that the photos on this page are Manhattan-centric and that is completely true.  This is a page about the whole city, not just Manhattan. I'd say crib them from the Brooklyn, Queens etc pages but they are not very rich with photos either.  It's fun to have photos you've taken on Wikipedia!  I'd do it myself but I'm 3000 miles away.   Just a thought -- because this page really needs outer-borough photographic representation (as do the individual outer borough pages for that matter).  Moncrief 21:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I've brought this up on the various photo request pages, but no luck. This shouldn't be too hard; can someone get a photo of a subway sign with a bunch of services, possibly at the Times Square mess? A rollsign on a car might also be nice; I'm thinking about photos to add to New York City Subway line, route and station nomenclature. --SPUI (talk) 15:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reiterating my wish that someone would take some Outer Borough photos for this page.  Help!  It's really embarassingly Manhattan-centric.  Moncrief 06:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
--I think I'll go and take some photos of Jackson Heights this weekend. Thats the best possible locale I can think of for this. --Jleon 12:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yay!  Thanks.  Moncrief 18:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
--Ok, I have the pics of Jackson Heights. I want to give them a quick run-through on Photoshop first, so I should be posting them sometime in the next few days. I'll put one each on the Queens and Jackson Heights articles too. --Jleon 13:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos (again)

message: --When talking about American cities (or even international ones for that matter) the terms "largest," "biggest," etc. are used universally in place of "most populous." It's just inconceivable to think that someone would become confused by us using "largest" in this article, so I truly believe we should change it back. --Jleon 23:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Largest" vs. "most populous" 

message: I exported large sections of Talk to Archive 4. In almost all cases they were issues that were 100% resolved and not ongoing. I moved out one section pertaining to pictures since it duplicated the greater debate about pictures which I left on this active talk page. 
  
Recently, I think we've been drifting up in size. Maybe we should focus on final cleaning? Remove the red links, add more footnotes. Resolve the photo debate. 
  
Also, I think whomever pointed out that we should have a 9/11 picture, or a pre-9/11 pic of the WTC, is correct. It's one of the single most important moments in the history of the city. The stock market crash might be the only other with the same importance (IMO). Kaisershatner 20:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Issues, Getting ready to resub yet?

message: The article starts out with "New York City (officially named the  City of New York)", but I'm thinking it would be more correct to have The City of New York.  That's the way the NYC official web page  seems to do it (see, for example, the copyright notice at the bottom of that page). RoySmith 02:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name? 

message: I was wondering if anyone can check the facts on the statement that NYC has the largest collection of skyscrapers in the world.  I think Shanghai might have surpassed us in the past few years.
A BBC article from 9/13/03 says of Shanghai that "at least 3,000 high-rise buildings have gone up; another 2,000 are on the drawing-boards".  
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3105948.stm
I don't think we have anything approaching 5,000 high-rises in NYC, but I haven't counted.  "High rise" probably includes buildings shorter than skyscrapers, anyway.  The Wikipedia article on skyscrapers suggests 152 meters as the minimum height to be a skyscraper.  
Sources seem to use all different kinds of criteria.  Skyscraperpage.com lists only 246 "buildings" for Shanghai (less than one tenth the number cited by BBC), and of these only 56 exceed the 152-meter minimum.  (New York is listed as number 1 with 683 "buildings", of which 186 exceed the 152-meter minimum.)  
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/
Emporis' list of the 200 tallest buildings includes 27 NYC buildings and only 12 in Shanghai:
http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/wo/
But I don't know how to explain the above data in light of the BBC article, unless the study cited by the BBC includes much shorter buildings (like 2 stories).  If anyone can resolve these discrepancies and confirm/correct the statement about NYC's collection of skyscrapers, I'd be interested.  
--Nomenclaturist 02:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Skyscrapers 

message: I reverted the changes by 62.161.27.52; first of all, thanks for providing an updated reference estimate of the Jewish population.  Second, I'd encourage you to get a user ID, makes editing and conflict resolution much easier.  With respect to your change, while the detail about the declining Jewish population is correct, I think it belongs in an article about the history of the Jews of New York.
Kaisershatner 18:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 62.161.27.52, thanks again for your contribution.  I expanded the Demographics of New York City article, so if you want to work on that, it is probably a good home for the information you had put into the main article.  Kaisershatner 18:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics, Jewish Community

message: Do we really need all of:
 NYC redirects here. For other uses, see NYC (disambiguation).
 
 New York, New York redirects here. For other uses, see New York, New York (disambiguation).
 
 This article refers to the city of New York in the state of New York in the United States. For
 other uses see New  York (disambiguation).
At the beginning?  I understand the desire to make sure people find the article they're looking for, but the final result is a jumble of italic text that distracts the reader from the heart of the New York City article.  Sometimes being correct is not the same as being useful --RoySmith 13:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are useful for people that type the things that redirect here, though I do agree that the condensed way it is now is better. --SPUI (talk) 00:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect verbiage 

message: #Strongly support returning the only US city exception to the defacto cityname, statename convention (which has recently also been adopted for all Australian cities except their 5-10 capitals).  Niteowlneils 01:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article title makes no more sense than Atlanta City, Miami City, Chicago City, Los Angeles City, Denver City, (or conversely Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Salt Lake, Utah, Kansas, Kansas) or any other place that doesn't exist.  Again, I understand that its called "New York city" to disambiguate it from "New York state", but so is "Washington state".  It doesn't matter how many people make this mistake, it's still factually wrong and therefore does not belong in Wikipedia as a "correct" article title.  Furthermore, if it was moved without consensus as someone mentioned, then it should be moved back immediately.  For people that like to whine about moves and create excessive edits because links are via an essentially-invisible redirect instead of being "direct", so what??  That's what redirects are for!  The users don't even see them!  –radiojon 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the official New York City web site, which is at nyc.gov (the nyc standing for New York City), says "Welcome to the official New York City Web site". It's not clear to me how you can say that the name New York City is in any way wrong when that is exactly what the city calls itself. Nohat 20:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose.  I think applying this naming convention uniformly to major cities is unfortunate (and most unfortunate with this most major of cities).  I think the name of the city alone should suffice; there isn't a disabmbiguation issue.  So in my ideal Wikipedia, the non re-directed article title would be simply "Detroit" instead of Detroit, Michigan and so on for U.S. cities without dab issues that are over, say, 500,000 in population.  If, for example, UK cities can get by with article titles of single town names like Kenilworth even for lesser cities, why not major U.S. cities too?  A long way of saying: Oppose.  Moncrief 01:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
#Oppose.  It's actually called New York City.  That should be enough.  "New York, New York" is the postal address of New York County (Manhattan).--Pharos 02:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #Abstain. I'm going to go off in left field here and say that I think the article should just be called "New York".  It may not be the official name, and it may not match some naming convention, but it's what most people call it, and thus it's what most people are most likely to type into the search box to find it.  And they'll be surprised to find an article about New York State there, and it'll be two more clicks before they get past the referenced disambig page to where they were looking to be in the first place.  But I imagine I'm in the minority on this, so I think I'm just going to Abstain.  --RoySmith 02:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 15:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: Does anybody know what's happening with this page?  It appears to have been vandalized, but it's more than that.  I've made several attempts to revert it, and I just get the vandalized text back.  It looks like other people have had the same experience.  Very strange --RoySmith 01:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Appending "?action=purge" to the URL fixed it. --SPUI (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre vandalism 

message: The lead paragraph contains the sentence:
:and the hundreds of international consulates associated with the United Nations
My understanding is that consulates deal with commercial and passport type issues, are unlikely to have any involvement with the UN, and there are presumably lots of them in New York because it has lots of people and lots of business. Those consulates would be subordinate to a country's 'Ambassador to the United States' based in Washington.
Dealing with the UN would however be the responsibility of a separate 'Ambassador to the United Nations'. Not sure whether this means countries actually maintain 'Embassies to the United Nations' in New York, but it seems likely for at least the larger countries. -- Chris j wood 19:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consulates associated with the UN 

message: I created a lot of extra spaces because the photos and tables  mismatch with the text with a 17 inch screen (mine). 
Revas 3:30 (CET) 14/05/05
--Hmm, thats weird. I have viewed this article today on two different screens (one of them 17in.) with two different browsers and I didn't see any problem. I think this may come down to your settings for text display. Does anyone else experience these problems? --Jleon 01:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation for extra spaces 

message: *Keep contents list visible. For the reasons I give above. -- Chris j wood 11:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: I am surprised to find that there is no mention (nor even an article in wikipedia regarding it) of the African Burial Ground in lower Manhattan.  This burial ground is a significant part of the city's history, and for anybody who remembers, became a big issue for a brief period after it was discovered (many objected to the examination of the bodies and graves).  I will including it in the list of parks and grounds near the end of the article.  I hope that someone can give it a more comprehensive treatment.
--Sophitus 16:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I don't know how to include the African Burial Ground in that list of NYC-related topics.  When I try to edit it, all I find on the edit page is something like {NYC topics}.  Could somebody who knows how add the African Burial Ground to that list under the section "Parks and Grounds"?
--Sophitus 16:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
--You're totally right. I added it to the List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City, instead of to the parks list beacuse its use is largely cultural (like the Irish Hunger Memorial or the Holocaust Memorial). If I remember correctly, the memorial itself is currently under construction, but the site is still used for various cultural activities. I will likley go in and write the article for it this week if no one else gets to it first. --Jleon 17:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: African Burial Ground?

message: Lately, I put 2 sections of this article into their own articles, and still this page is over 32KB. What can I do next to keep it from being large?? Georgia guy 19:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, why don't you slow down a little bit. This article is the colloboration of many active editors (of which I don't see your name in any recent contributions) and (although yes boldness is good) it would be wise to take a pulse of how things are going before deciding that you need to chop the article up. -- Decumanus 19:34, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
--I agree 100%, I have already restored partial versions of the material, but would personally prefer them totally restored for the time being. What is the point of having an major heading with only a link below it? Also why have an article called "transportation in NYC" and then a separate article still called "mass transit in NYC"? We need to progress more slowly with the trimming process, there's really no need for urgency. --Jleon 20:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing this article 

message: Thanks to User:Aspersions (though they're all from the surface and in Manhattan). See commons:IRT, commons:IND and commons:BMT. --SPUI (talk) 03:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you should mention that taking photos in and around the subway system is now considered an act of terrorism, and you will be subject to a random search and seizure, followed by incarceration and confiscation of said photos and camera... isn't living in a police state wonderful? - 19:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: We now have a lot of subway photos