→Links here: It's an exercise in swamp-draining. Once the swamp is drained (i.e., incorrect links are fixed), then we'll decide what to do. There is no great rush (and, I think, some reason to pause for at least a number of months). |
→Links here: agree, but a formal close might be good |
||
Line 1,422: | Line 1,422: | ||
:::There is no consensus for such a move. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 19:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
:::There is no consensus for such a move. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 19:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::: It's an exercise in swamp-draining. Once the swamp is drained (i.e., incorrect links are fixed), then we'll decide what to do. There is no great rush (and, I think, some reason to pause for at least a number of months, or longer, after the last process). [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
::: It's an exercise in swamp-draining. Once the swamp is drained (i.e., incorrect links are fixed), then we'll decide what to do. There is no great rush (and, I think, some reason to pause for at least a number of months, or longer, after the last process). [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::Agree 100%, but I'm wondering whether we should try to get a formal close of the latest RM before that. Not quite sure how. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 22:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:52, 14 September 2016
New York (state) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 9 June 2016
SSTFlyer closed and re-closed (is there even such a thing?) this Move request on 18 June, 2016. Next, the outcome was controverted and listed at Move review, on June 21 (mentioned here, just above). Next, bd2412 closed that Move review as Overturn and relist (never clear whether "overturn" means full undo or just revert to undecided), on 7 July. (Update not mentioned here.) The new RfM was pre-listed for initial discussion at Talk:New_York/July 2016 move request (instead of on this page), on 7 July. (Change was not mentioned here.) The "re-listing" (new Move request) will not be "filed" and real discussion begin (there, not here) until July 14 22:00 18 July 2016 (is there even such a thing as a deferred RfM? (They're actually deleting comments!)). (Only mentioned here NOW, 11:22, 18 July 2016.) -A876 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
There are three possible ways to close this discussion, depending on how the discussion closer interprets the consensus.
- Closing this as “no consensus”. Some participants consider the state to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, some consider the city to be the primary topic, some do not think a primary topic exists.
- Moving the state away from the base title, and moving the city to the base title. Stronger arguments support having a primary topic than not, and of the arguments in support of having a primary topic, support is stronger for the city than the state.
- Moving the state away from the base title, and moving the disambiguation page to the base title. There is no consensus for having either the city or the state to be the primary topic, and some participants think a primary topic does not exist.
This is not an easy decision. I originally closed this as “no consensus” according to option 1, but now I am modifying my closure to implement option 3 instead. Among policy-based arguments, there is rough consensus that the state is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should not be at the base title, thus option 1 (maintaining the status quo) is not optimal. On the other hand, I do not consider the consensus to move New York City to the base title to be strong enough. Therefore, I am closing this as move New York the state to New York (state) (suggestions to use WP:PARENDIS instead of WP:NATURALDIS were not opposed), and move New York (disambiguation) to New York. This is without prejudice against a new RM discussion at Talk:New York City to move the city to the base title. (closed by a page mover) SSTflyer 05:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
New York → New York State – According to the AP Stylebook, New York City is listed as New York, and is also the legal name of the city. The state and city use New York for a name. The state does not have primary usage of the name. Most people, when saying "New York", refer to the city and not the state. If people were referring to the state, they should say "New York State" or "State of New York" or "Upstate New York", etc. I propose having the state named New York State and having the city named New York City, with New York as a disambiguation page. Also, New York State instead of New York (state) is WP:NATURAL. There is really no WP:PRIMARY topic of "New York" - you could be referring to the state or the city. That is why I am proposing this new requested move. Another option, instead of New York as a disambiguation page, is to redirect it to New York City, although I am opposed to it. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support – Simple logic. I've never understood how the state gained primary topic status. It clearly isn't the primary topic. Certainly, as a Briton, we know the city more than the state, for instance. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Also never understood the state primary topic status. I am foreign, so for me, New York is the city. Searching New York and finding the State topic is puzzling. And annoying. I would prefer if New York redirects to New York City. --Robertiki (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per many discussions before. Nominee has offered no proof about how "most people" use the term, merely assertions. The line "If people were referring to the state, they should say "New York State" or "State of New York" or "Upstate New York", etc. " is especially silly; someone could equally say "If people are referring to the city, they should say "New York City". Who is issuing these "shoulds?" Additionally, "New York" (state) and "Upstate New York" are not synonyms! Plenty of NY State activities in New York City, too. It'd be like claiming the City of London is not part of London. Anyway, no other US state has "State" randomly added to the end; the state is merely "New York", so if the article is moved, it should honor the format of Georgia (U.S. state) and go to New York (U.S. state). But there's no need for such a move. SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment SnowFire New York (state) is definitely open to discussion. I picked New York State because it is WP:NATURAL. And... please Explain to me how the state is the primary topic, and not the city and than we can chat ;) Cheers, ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 00:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- How does London contribute to this argument? City of London is a city within a city (London). We are talking about city and state. New York mostly refers to the city, more than the state. There is no primary topic. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 00:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- The claim that if people mean the state, they'll say "Upstate New York". Which is nonsensical because "Downstate New York" is also part of New York (state)! And there's plenty of things within NYC that refer specifically to the *State*, e.g. state income taxes, state police, etc. Saying that New York City isn't in New York is equivalent to saying City of London isn't in London, that is, really wrong. New York (City) is in fact part of New York (state), so "Upstate New York" is not equivalent.
- I'm a huge fan of natural disambiguation over parenthetical, but think it's a bad idea for the likes of U.S. states, where the formal name is important (e.g. Hawaii, not Hawaiʻi). As for primary topic, no, I agree, there isn't a clear primary topic. "New York" can refer to either the city or the state. However, there are lots of other considerations that make the current setup acceptable, and for further move requests just to be churn. It avoids a disambiguation page at a highly-trafficed page, and a hatnote enables the other option as well as the disambig page to be easily accessed. It means that, SomeTownName, New York, a very common address format, points where you'd expect. It makes a lot of formal references by state to not need to be converted to anything crazy, e.g. things like election results which will only say "New York" not "New York state". THere's more reasons in the archives, too. How does this move placing a disambiguation page here help? Inertia is a real criterion; some location has to win, and it's easier for all involved if it's only changed with a really good reason. Think of it this way: we flip a coin in 2002, and just accept that whether it lands on city or state, we just run with it afterward. They both can't win, and the article isn't improved by moving it back & forth, or to a disambig. SnowFire (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I believe you are confusing what I am saying. I never said that New York City was never apart of the state. New York City is a city in the State of New York. I am very open to the discussion. New York (currently the state) should be named New York State or New York (state) and New York City should remain the same. New York should than become a disambiguation page, or it should redirect to New York City with a hatnote to New York State. Listen, I am here to make Wikipedia easier and more reliable to use. They both can't win? Oh, so that's how it will be ;) Something needs to be done. Many people internationally think of "New York" as simply referring to the city. The state should not have priority over the city. The city is more known internationally than the state. That is why I am bringing this up ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- How does London contribute to this argument? City of London is a city within a city (London). We are talking about city and state. New York mostly refers to the city, more than the state. There is no primary topic. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 00:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - The name of the state is "New York." I agree with SnowFire above about state article naming conventions. However, the status quo is the simplest, as both city and state have titles that are also names in common usage. Fitnr 02:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- The name of the city is also "New York", and there is no way that anyone can claim that the state has primary topic status. The point is that when one types New York, one shouldn't be sent to the state's page. There should be a dab page, or maybe someone can present a case for primary topic status for the city. I don't know. The present situation, however, is not supported by any guidelines or policies. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Fitnr, should we change Washington (state) to Washington ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Sure, I think you could make a good argument for that. To make it a better analogy: Ignore the person, and imagine the choice was only between using Washington for the state or the city. The obvious solution would be to give the plain name to the state and use Washington, D.C. for the city. Under the status quo, both articles have simple names. There are going to be hatnotes on both articles either way, so why not avoid parentheses, which are ugly and possibly confusing to people unfamiliar with naming conventions? Fitnr 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose on so many levels, I'm surprised this is up for discussion again. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- ɱ — I am just as surprised as you ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 14:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok among the arguments I agree with: Parenthetical disambiguators are ugly and to be avoided when possible, the hatnote at the top of this article makes any confusion clear and quickly solved, and the suggestions on the search bar should allow most people to find the right page. And this FAQ. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- If a hatnote is proven to work, than I will close this argument as me being ignorant. Well... actually, I change my mine. Let's just let the requested move take its 7 day course ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok among the arguments I agree with: Parenthetical disambiguators are ugly and to be avoided when possible, the hatnote at the top of this article makes any confusion clear and quickly solved, and the suggestions on the search bar should allow most people to find the right page. And this FAQ. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- ɱ — I am just as surprised as you ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 14:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose because I think the state is the primary topic for "New York". I especially oppose "New York State". Natural disambiguation has a place, but not like that. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nohomersryan We could use New York (state) or New York (U.S. state), but it sounds like you are a no goer, anyway, shape or form ;) that's fine with me pal. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 14:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per the FAQ, Past proposals exist, and prior to making new proposals, one should review those that have already taken place, such as the ones that occurred in Oct–Nov 2004, Feb 2005, Feb–Sep 2005, Mar–Aug 2008, and Oct–Nov 2010.. I see no evidence the nominator actually did. Also, I'm surprised by the bluntness of commenters who believe the lack of a primary topic is plainly obvious.MelanieLamont (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- MelanieLamont Aye, I guess I did not read the instructions very well ;) ... oops! Bluntness: abrupt in address or manner... and am I really that bluntness, sweetie pie? ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 14:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. The current setup is fine, and this RM seems like a solution looking for a problem. Users searching for the city who end up here can use the hatnote, the link to NYC in the lead paragraph, or the one in the infobox. Calidum ¤ 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per cookiemonster, I'm afraid NYC is the primary topic for NY by a mile, especially outside of the US. newyork.com seems to be 100% about NYC. Timmyshin (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support what wording exactly? And you should read the old RMs, which make notes that people always ask for clarification when you say you're from New York. As a New Yorker formerly living in California, saying I was from New York always required further explanation. Btw, the website newyork.com isn't owned by any government; some company holds the domain and can therefore do whatever they want with it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what the relevance of that website is to this discussion. Calidum ¤ 20:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's the first result when you Google "New York", and Google usually does a good job ranking its search results (they hire hundreds of human raters to do this). The point is when most people say NY they mean NYC. At the very least the state isn't primary, and placing the state at baseline for convenience purposes runs counter to the guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This isn't "Kansas" vs. "Kansas City". Timmyshin (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, really? Should I just close it and call myself ignorant of the facts? :O ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support: per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both the state and the city are referred to as New York. Would also suggest that we move New York (disambiguation) → New York at the same time as neither the state or the city is the primary topic. Ebonelm (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as proposed and extremely strongly oppose a dab page at New York. The latter is such a waste, ruining everyone's day and wasting everyone's time. But most of the information that NYC's article would have can instead make it to the reader through the state's article; unfortunately, the reverse is not true, which for me dictates that the state should stay primary. Red Slash 21:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- That view however runs contrary to WP:DAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines. I assume you'll be taking issue with pages such as Washington, Palestine, and Georgia on the grounds that currently nobody gets the page they really want when using these search terms and that it would be better to be really helpful to one small sub-set of searchers but really irritating to the majority? Ebonelm (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. The state is clearly not the primary topic for "New York" by any metric laid out at the guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Jenks24, or move to New York (state). There does not appear to be a WP:Primary topic for the term "New York", so the term needs disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I notice that the other ambiguous U.S. state names are at Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (state). In line with those examples, I suggest that New York (state) sees preferable to New York State. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe it's the non-American in me, but I definitely think of the state when someone says "New York". Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. This discussion shows that some people think of the state when they think "New York", while some think of the city. In any case, many people think of the state, and as New York State is not limited to one part of the state, that should be the default. The hatnote pointing readers to New York City should be plenty sufficient. And what's more, the New York / New York City titling has worked for years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- If the hatnote has proved to be useful, than I will not support my own proposal :O ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 03:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I am the one who proposed this - I will be honest - I live in Oregon and I think of state when someone says New York. If I was to refer to the city, I would refer to the specific borough. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 03:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per the FAQ, and per WP:DONTFIXIT. The hatnote serves well, and there really isn't a clear primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad:, you are correct there isn't a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that's why it should be a DAB page, per the guidelines. Ebonelm (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:TWODAB, though. Hatnotes are sufficient, not a dab page. Cuts the number of clicks a reader might need to make, while making the link far more prominent that it would be even on the best designed dab page. It's literally the first thing after the title. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect, both the status quo and the propsed move would only require one click. Ebonelm (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Then why bother changing it if there's no reduction in clicks? And I still think the hatnote it in a better position to immediately let the reader know if they're in the right place or not. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because the State of New York is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term 'New York'. The New York State and New York City pages will still have a hatnote link to one another. For the exact same reason we have DAB pages at Georgia and Washington. Ebonelm (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Then why bother changing it if there's no reduction in clicks? And I still think the hatnote it in a better position to immediately let the reader know if they're in the right place or not. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect, both the status quo and the propsed move would only require one click. Ebonelm (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:TWODAB, though. Hatnotes are sufficient, not a dab page. Cuts the number of clicks a reader might need to make, while making the link far more prominent that it would be even on the best designed dab page. It's literally the first thing after the title. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad:, you are correct there isn't a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that's why it should be a DAB page, per the guidelines. Ebonelm (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. The state is clearly not the primary topic. Possibly there isn't one; If there is it would be New York City. For example, if an Australian newsreader were to say most of New York is currently blacked out that would mean the city, unambiguously. Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Very poor example. Never has most of the state lost power, even during Hurricane Sandy, likely the most devastating disaster to affect the state in modern history. So of course in that context you'd link it with NYC. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Very poor logic. While Americans may be aware of these details (or not), most Australians are not. So in this context, the historical facts are irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, clearly you weren't aware of it to give such an example, but the concept of most of New York losing power is ridiculous and impossible. Nevertheless, New York is definitely the larger topic as well as the larger entity, based on all of the ways it's used and more. Even that sentence should count as proof because I don't really have to specify. New York City is not New York. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Another poor guess... I'm well aware of these events, but many Australians would not be. As for your confidence that the concept of most of New York losing power is ridiculous and impossible, are you aware that this is what most power engineers thought of the failure that did occur... before it occurred. But that's beside the point really. See more discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, clearly you weren't aware of it to give such an example, but the concept of most of New York losing power is ridiculous and impossible. Nevertheless, New York is definitely the larger topic as well as the larger entity, based on all of the ways it's used and more. Even that sentence should count as proof because I don't really have to specify. New York City is not New York. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Very poor logic. While Americans may be aware of these details (or not), most Australians are not. So in this context, the historical facts are irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Very poor example. Never has most of the state lost power, even during Hurricane Sandy, likely the most devastating disaster to affect the state in modern history. So of course in that context you'd link it with NYC. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
I note that in the titles New York, New York (So Good They Named It Twice), The Sidewalks of New York, An Englishman in New York, etc., the phrase New York refers to the city. That to me is evidence that the primary topic may be the city. At the very least, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (and the above discussion is long on opinions, short on evidence), it seems to count against any other primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh my goodness, I can't believe I keep missing these important RMs before it's too late. @SSTflyer: please could you reopen? I wholeheartedly support this move, and I have long regarded it as a big anomaly on Wikipedia, where we're following some unwritten rule (that states are automatically superior to cities), rather than our policies. New York state is not primary over the city by either of our two WP:PTOPIC criteria, common usage or long term significance. I will say more about this when I ahve some time. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, you say in your close that "both sides have made valid arguments". I'd be interested to know what the valid arguments of the opposers are, other than "we discussed this many times before", and "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". Which aren't valid arguments at all. A few people say that the state is primary for the term over the city, but fail to give any evidence. Whereas the evidence that the state is not the primary topic is quite overwhelming - just type "New York" into Google search or Google books search, and see what the results refer to. A move to New York (state) (to match Washington (state), or indeed New York State is really a no brainer here. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with this. Arguments are supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy. Policy seems to indicate a move, to me.
- It is possible, even likely, that in the USA, New York the state is better known than in the rest of the world. I'm still skeptical that the state would be the primary meaning even in the US, but in any case this is English Wikipedia, not US Wikipedia. The city of New York has a world wide fame that the state can't equal, and this is reflected in English usage of the term New York to most often mean the city.
- But whether or not the city is the primary meaning is a discussion for another time. This one is about whether the state is the primary meaning. No case has been made that it is in terms of policy and guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, you say in your close that "both sides have made valid arguments". I'd be interested to know what the valid arguments of the opposers are, other than "we discussed this many times before", and "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". Which aren't valid arguments at all. A few people say that the state is primary for the term over the city, but fail to give any evidence. Whereas the evidence that the state is not the primary topic is quite overwhelming - just type "New York" into Google search or Google books search, and see what the results refer to. A move to New York (state) (to match Washington (state), or indeed New York State is really a no brainer here. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Implementation
@Wbm1058 and Amakuru: before performing these page moves (which requires an administrator because this article is move-protected), existing pages that link to New York must be updated, because the disambiguation page is going to take its place. Normally I would do this using AWB, but with 73,972 articles having links to the state, it simply isn’t feasible for me to update all these links by hand. How should all these links be updated? Should a bot request be filed? SSTflyer 06:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? This should have been closed by an administrator, if not by a team of admins. I'm taking it to move review. "Page movers" are stepping way out of bounds here. I admit a bit of "involved-ness" here, as a native of Upstate. The state is the primary topic. wbm1058 (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, that's my initial gut reaction. Let me calm down, and perhaps I'll have a more measured response in a bit. wbm1058 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to suspect that this "involved-ness" is significant. See my comment in the RM discussion (it was actually made after the first close and was incorporated into the archived discussion by the second close). Andrewa (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Having these pages link to the DAB is not a serious problem. In time these will all be fixed, and the sooner the moves are performed, the sooner we can start on the process.
- It's not a suitable job for a bot, because of the risk that a considerable number of the links are already intended to link to New York City or perhaps New York metropolitan area. So I'm afraid we need to examine each one by hand.
- Which needs doing anyway. The very first page on the what links here list, in fact, is American Football Conference, and while I can't find the relevant link there (can't see why), the three occurrences of New York on that page all mean New York metropolitan area rather than the entire state. There will be many, many more. Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- It was the link for the location of the Buffalo Bills. Most definitely not about NYC or its metro area. Just sayin' oknazevad (talk)
- @Andrewa: The link to the article on this state is hidden in the seemingly single link "Buffalo, NY". The link to New York State (this article) is in the "NY" portion. The link to Buffalo, New York, is in the "Buffalo" portion. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking just from a technical standpoint now. Something of this magnitude cannot be done overnight. If you just move the page now, the good volunteers at WikiProject Disambiguation will be throwing darts at you. The Disambiguation pages with links machine will blow some gaskets.
There are nearly 400 templates linking to New York. I suppose the first step would be to manually disambiguate those templates. The next step would be to wait, likely a month or more, for the job queue to work through those. Then take another look at the remaining what-links-here results to evaluate methods for efficient disambiguation of the rest. There may be ways it could be tackled by AWB if specific usage patterns can be detected.
But any way you cut this, it's a major undertaking at this point in the Wikipedia project. I've gotta think that if such disambiguation was really necessary, it would have been done years ago. The bigger the encyclopedia gets, the harder this gets to implement. We should hold off on beginning implementation until after this is reviewed. wbm1058 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually you would move the page, but New York must redirect to New York (state) for an extended period of time. New York (disambiguation) should not be moved over the base title until the groundwork is done, and only a manageable number of pages needing disambiguation remain. wbm1058 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've started the process of implementation - moving the economy, politics, education, flag and government articles to the "(state)" title (cleaning up all the links after the move), and I've cleaned up the {{United States topic}}
template where it is used so that it works properly. There's a long way to go, but moving the page to New York (state) and leaving the leftover redirect alone for a bit would be helpful. It would allow us to change the target of all of the redirects that are going to point to the state article instead of the disambiguation page without having one of the double-redirect bots changing them back. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 13:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, your changes are good. There are over 60 redirects; I suppose those that don't explicitly include "state" in some form will be kept as is. wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Wbm1058: I suggest keeping the redirect from New York to New York (state) for a transition period of at least 6 months, so all the links can be cleaned up. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- A point regarding this. I support disambiguation of this nature, especially with topics like "finance industry in..." or "tourism in..." as with some of these the city will arguably be primary or closer to primary. However, this has limits. For example, List of mountains of New York, disambiguation is not necessary because the meaning of "New York" is well-understood in context. The city has no mountains. wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- As with List of mountain peaks of Washington wbm1058 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- But what about Mount Vernon, both owned by a Washington and near Washington, D.C.? Antepenultimate (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, what a mess! This means that we're going to have to move a lot of articles with titles "List of x in New York" or "x in New York" to "List of x in New York (state)" or "x in New York (state)" (see Special:CategoryTree/New York). This is a move with really large consequences. This really needs move review. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. If the title is already sufficiently concise without the addition of state or a similar disambiguator, then there's no need to move the article. I did a quick Google on "list of" "New York" Wikipedia and both List of New York state prisons and List of New York hurricanes were on the first page. There's no need to move either of these articles (for different reasons). There will be many similar. Andrewa (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Continued discussion
I see some discussion has continued within the closed MR, but ideally that shouldn't be modified. And sorry, I do feel the need to give my opinion, even if it's too late (did it ever cross anyone's mind to notify any of the regional NY WikiProjects, all of which are heavily affected by this rushed decision?)
This entire thing seems to hinge on a Google search. Given the city's economic importance and tourism appeal, it is not surprising that it is well-represented online. That seems to be the sole evidence-based argument that the city is PRIMARYTOPIC; both support and oppose give unsourced assertions that the state is, or isn't, primary. (I strongly disagree that "Among policy-based arguments, there is rough consensus that the state is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". "Rough" is way too generous.) Evidence pointing to the state perhaps being primary is plain in the section above this comment; I do not thing you will find that an excess of those incoming links were intended for the city. Every single municipality, park, building, person born, etc. outside of the metro area will have a link to the state page. I don't know if this is worth the massive effort "fixing" this problem will cause.
I don't see a strong argument demolishing WP:NATURAL here, by the way. It is natural for people to append "New York", meaning the state, when describing the location of anything outside the city. It is also natural for people to do the same within the city, but not at all uncommon to say "New York City" instead, a natural name that is plainly recognizable to people worldwide. There is no natural equivalent for referring to the state. Hence, the current setup makes sense, and is in no way confusing for visitors to this site, some of whom at worst may need to click on a hatnote link. (This new 'solution' forces everyone to make an extra click, how is this an improvement in usability?)
Sorry. Really wish I had known about this before its effects started blowing up my watchlist. I strongly feel this should be re-opened or reviewed. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mind reopening this for another week if that's what we want. SSTflyer 14:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Echoing Antepenultimate above. This definitely needs to be reopened; non-admins should only be closing unanimous decisions, not controversial discussions like these. I, too, failed to see very much policy on either side, so the suggestion that there is consensus among policy-based arguments is wildly inaccurate and the closure comes across as a supervote.
- I second Chase's and Antepenultimate's calls to re-open the RM. This is controversial, so a page mover shouldn't have closed. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I third these calls, in objectivity no consensus has been reached, at least yet. Votes and arguments are still very well split. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would call myself surprised that the close has now been reversed this way, following my appeal to the closer yesterday. But having said that, it is absolutely the right close, whether by a non-admin or not. Make no mistake, New York state is an important topic, and I wouldn't go as far as to say that the city is primary over the state, but to suggest the city is definitely below the state is also hard to defend, and I don't think any of the oppose votes above make a decent case of it, particularly when calling to mind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the two criteria of "common usage" and "long term significance". New York City is a massive contender on both of those. The world's foremost global city and financial centre, even more so than London, where I live. Seat of the UN as well. When you say New York to people around the world (and I believe, around the United States as well) they will be more likely to think you mean the city. So I say to SSTflyer be bold, stick by the close. People can move review it if they like, but personally I thoroughly endorse the close as moved. — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion is not consensus, and it is clear that there was no consensus above. That is all that truly matters when evaluating this close. The utter lack of notification to interested WikiProjects was appalling as well. If the solution is as obvious as you think, then your preferred outcome should have no trouble sailing through another week of (well-advertised) discussion. But, the numerous previous discussions that came to no consensus on this issue may be a clue that it is not as simple as "I'll bet most people think of the city first", with the sum of evidence being a Google search and a bunch of people's hunches. In keeping this policy-based, let's bring up some of the instructions for non-admin closers of RMs: Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period. It is plainly obvious, I would hope to even people who agree with the ultimate outcome, that there was no clear consensus for any of this,
especially the ultimate outcome, which was barely mentioned let alone fully discussed (it should have been a separate proposal, really).Finally, the scope of this change is huge, and should be undertaken carefully, rather than 'boldly'. It should have been re-listed, and better advertised. Antepenultimate (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC) struck through innacurate reading of discussion, it was (confusingly) mentioned in the original proposal. Antepenultimate (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)- Sure, my personal opinion isn't consensus, but equally a whole stack of oppose votes that don't reference our policies, and fail to explain why America's fourth most populous state is primary over its largest city, which is also the world's foremost city, don't constitute a consensus either. If there's some reason why New York state has to be the primary topic, then it should be possible to provide evidence that it satisfies either long term significance or common usage of the term. Instead the thrust of the arguments are just that we've always done it this way, and it's going to be hard work to sort out the links and other article titles. Well sure, but those aren't at the moment valid reasons for titling the article that way. Maybe you should try to change the policy if you feel that strongly about it. — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- At no point was I suggesting a change of policy, so I don't know where that last bit comes from. Pretty much all of the strong evidence in support of this change has come out after the close, and I thank you and Wbm1058 for it, would that it could have been part of an official discussion so others may have had a chance to respond and further analyze. My entire point was that the close was premature, and based on half-baked discussion among limited participants. Even if the outcome I disagree with is ultimately affirmed, I think a decision of this magnitude should be allowed increased discussion with greater participation. That's how things are supposed to work around here. But that seems unlikely now, so I'll just drop it, I guess. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you can relate to this example. What's the primary topic for Ireland? I think countries take precedence over islands (I know the island is bigger geographically, but the country is more important politically). Really, there is no clear PT, so let's move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland. Just as most people don't say "New York City", they don't say "Republic of Ireland". I think this one's so controversial that it went to Arbcom. wbm1058 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- That particular instance had some troubles, which NYC, NYS, and the NYC area don't seem to have. Everyone agrees that New York (the city, state, metro ares, or even the county is the best place everywhere . Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, my personal opinion isn't consensus, but equally a whole stack of oppose votes that don't reference our policies, and fail to explain why America's fourth most populous state is primary over its largest city, which is also the world's foremost city, don't constitute a consensus either. If there's some reason why New York state has to be the primary topic, then it should be possible to provide evidence that it satisfies either long term significance or common usage of the term. Instead the thrust of the arguments are just that we've always done it this way, and it's going to be hard work to sort out the links and other article titles. Well sure, but those aren't at the moment valid reasons for titling the article that way. Maybe you should try to change the policy if you feel that strongly about it. — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion is not consensus, and it is clear that there was no consensus above. That is all that truly matters when evaluating this close. The utter lack of notification to interested WikiProjects was appalling as well. If the solution is as obvious as you think, then your preferred outcome should have no trouble sailing through another week of (well-advertised) discussion. But, the numerous previous discussions that came to no consensus on this issue may be a clue that it is not as simple as "I'll bet most people think of the city first", with the sum of evidence being a Google search and a bunch of people's hunches. In keeping this policy-based, let's bring up some of the instructions for non-admin closers of RMs: Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period. It is plainly obvious, I would hope to even people who agree with the ultimate outcome, that there was no clear consensus for any of this,
- I would call myself surprised that the close has now been reversed this way, following my appeal to the closer yesterday. But having said that, it is absolutely the right close, whether by a non-admin or not. Make no mistake, New York state is an important topic, and I wouldn't go as far as to say that the city is primary over the state, but to suggest the city is definitely below the state is also hard to defend, and I don't think any of the oppose votes above make a decent case of it, particularly when calling to mind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the two criteria of "common usage" and "long term significance". New York City is a massive contender on both of those. The world's foremost global city and financial centre, even more so than London, where I live. Seat of the UN as well. When you say New York to people around the world (and I believe, around the United States as well) they will be more likely to think you mean the city. So I say to SSTflyer be bold, stick by the close. People can move review it if they like, but personally I thoroughly endorse the close as moved. — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I third these calls, in objectivity no consensus has been reached, at least yet. Votes and arguments are still very well split. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I second Chase's and Antepenultimate's calls to re-open the RM. This is controversial, so a page mover shouldn't have closed. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone ever considered Manhattan (New York County, New York) as yet another place that may also be called "New York"? When people outside of the country think about "New York", it's usually about the city. When they think about the city, it's usually about Manhattan. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Outline of the choice to be made
- São Paulo, in English Wikipedia, is an article about the largest city in Brazil. It's located in São Paulo (state), the most populous state in Brazil.
- São Paulo, in Portuguese Wikipedia, is about the state. The city is at São Paulo (cidade) (they speak Portuguese in Brazil).
- I'd guess that if you picked out a random English-speaking person on the street, and asked them what state the city São Paulo was in, they couldn't tell you. All they know is that it's a big city in Brazil.
- I think more Britons and Australians know what state New York City is in, but I don't know that for sure.
That in a nutshell, shows where the fault lines lie here. The locals are mostly content with the status quo. Those from overseas favor the city. I haven't reviewed all the discussions about this, but, in terms of Policy, there is no single "right answer". The guideline says "When a widely accepted English name exists for a place, we should use it." Great. New York is a widely accepted name for both. New York City is another widely accepted name for the city. WP:USPLACE gives guidance for naming populated places, cities, counties, metropolitan areas, minor civil divisions and neighborhoods, but no specific guidance for naming one of the 50 states. WP:PLACEDAB says "When there are conventional means of disambiguation in standard English, use them, as in Red River of the North and Red River of the South, and in New York City (to distinguish from the state of New York)." But, I suppose if there are no conventional means of disambiguation for the state, then the generic parenthetical disambiguating tag (state) is acceptable. Primary topic determination is subjective, but the page view stats don't make a strong case for the state as PT, I must concede. Has anyone found evidence of a mislinking problem, i.e. editors saving [[New York]] when they meant to link to the city? If that's a significant problem, then making the title a {{disambiguation}} page ensures these bad links will be corrected. I can guess though that if disambiguation is forced, there will be a lot of need to use NAVPOPS to change [[New York]] to [[New York (state)|New York]]. It might be worth it if there is a significant mislinking problem here. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have any facts of figures, but instinctively I would imagine there are a ton of links to New York that are intended for the city. I've found a few right off, just looking at the first page of incoming links Bermuda#Economic and political development, Casa Milà#Architecture, Aeschylus#References, Auguste and Louis Lumière#First film screenings etc. I've never thought of this angle before, but actually we would catch these much easier with a dab page. That's not in itself a reason why we should or shouldn't, but it counters the "inconvenience" argument because we would gain a powerful new way to disambiguate. — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, that was fast! Finding that many examples in just 19 mins. is enough to convince me. There must be hundreds, if not thousands of mislinks. I don't understand why more weight isn't given to examining internal links to determine primary topics. We so much more value what Google thinks [[blah]] means than what our own editors think it means. Myself, I give internal links more weight because they are more than subjective measures – they can be actual errors in need of repair. I see that no other admin has been sufficiently bold as to implement this close. I'll let it sit a bit longer, but I think I'll complete the move to (state) if nobody else does, on grounds this is harmless and helpful additional disambiguation, with the caveat of waiting a long time (months) before changing the resulting redirect (maybe never on that part). It's not common but we have cases like inverter, where the primary topic is a redirect to a disambiguated title – in this case, the naturally disambiguated power inverter. wbm1058 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, all of these "wrong" links are technically correct, as the city of New York is in the state of New York. Now the question is of precision: do we want the links to go to the state or to the city? I've changed many such links from the state to the city over the course of my three-plus years editing career. So maybe disambiguation is needed after all, but does the disambiguation page have to be at the title of New York? I'd rather have "New York" redirect to "New York (state)" and then change all the links to New York to either city or state. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:SPECIFICLINK: "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." Of course the article on the city has a link to the more general article about the state. wbm1058 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, I knew that about WP:SPECIFICLINK. That comment was a poorly conceived joke, though. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:SPECIFICLINK: "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." Of course the article on the city has a link to the more general article about the state. wbm1058 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see no reason for waiting a long time (months) before changing the resulting redirect (maybe never on that part) and every reason not to. The decision is that the state is not the primary meaning. It should be implemented.
- Why would you rather have "New York" redirect to "New York (state)" and then change all the links to New York to either city or state? Especially given that this course of action will generate new, hard to detect mislinks (see below)? Don't we have enough work to do, without generating more needlessly? Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, all of these "wrong" links are technically correct, as the city of New York is in the state of New York. Now the question is of precision: do we want the links to go to the state or to the city? I've changed many such links from the state to the city over the course of my three-plus years editing career. So maybe disambiguation is needed after all, but does the disambiguation page have to be at the title of New York? I'd rather have "New York" redirect to "New York (state)" and then change all the links to New York to either city or state. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, that was fast! Finding that many examples in just 19 mins. is enough to convince me. There must be hundreds, if not thousands of mislinks. I don't understand why more weight isn't given to examining internal links to determine primary topics. We so much more value what Google thinks [[blah]] means than what our own editors think it means. Myself, I give internal links more weight because they are more than subjective measures – they can be actual errors in need of repair. I see that no other admin has been sufficiently bold as to implement this close. I'll let it sit a bit longer, but I think I'll complete the move to (state) if nobody else does, on grounds this is harmless and helpful additional disambiguation, with the caveat of waiting a long time (months) before changing the resulting redirect (maybe never on that part). It's not common but we have cases like inverter, where the primary topic is a redirect to a disambiguated title – in this case, the naturally disambiguated power inverter. wbm1058 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ease of searching is only one of the reasons for identifying the primary meaning. Ease of linking is also important. In most parts of the world, editors will write [[New York]] and assume that the link will be to New York, the city. If the resulting link is to a DAB, they will be notified on their talk page, but if it's to the state, we'll get a mislinking that is hard to detect in any automated way. So if there's no consensus as to the primary topic, the DAB is a good choice for the undisambiguated name. Personally I think a case can be made that the city is the primary meaning, but even if that's the case then having the DAB at the undisambiguated name is not too bad, while having the state there is a far bigger problem. And similarly if the state is the primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Backlinks
This link shows how many backlinks to New York there are. We can use this to track progress.
- Documentation
- 119,019 as of now. "Months" may be a bit if exaggeration, but probably at least a couple weeks for the job queue to clear the template links. wbm1058 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- 99,891 as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- 94,351 as of now. Noting that BD2412bot has been working on this (contributions) – wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- A bot can only handle obvious cases (like "state of New York" or "city of New York"), and it only pulls 25,000 hits at a time to go through. This is going to require an immense manual effort. bd2412 T 16:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have sampled and manually fixed some backlinks. In the process I noticed a pattern that can easily be automated: links to New York as the publisher's location parameter in citations, which invariably mean the city. See my bot request to handle those cases. — JFG talk 16:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Stats on my manual sample: 61 articles had links to New York meaning New York City, 67 meaning New York State and 19 had both kinds, so there were 54% of New York links pointing the wrong way, proving the lack of a primary topic. Massive cleanup required indeed… regardless of the outcome of the move review! — JFG talk 20:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- JFG Sorry to dig up and old topic, but one question - of those 61 links intended for the city, how many were from a publisher's location parameter? (And can anyone point me to where it is discussed how such links in citations benefit readers of an article, and are not an example of WP:OVERLINK?) Antepenultimate (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have also found a good share of those. It is routine to link publisher cities, and would probably be just as much work, if not more, to unlink those entirely. bd2412 T 00:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not really about to mount a crusade to remove those links (they seem harmless, even if they're just linknoise), but anyone attempting to do a backlink analysis to better understand the primacy of a topic should probably discount or ignore publisher location links. They don't really demonstrate the importance of a topic the same way as links found within article prose, and are likely inflating the "mis-linked New York City" problem. I'm just curious how much of that inflation is occurring. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Antepenultimate: This is an interesting and legitimate question, so I took the trouble to check all the diffs I made on July 4 to correct New York links. Of the 80 articles with links meant for New York City (61 with city links only and 19 with city and state links), 65 had those links in the article text and 15 in citations (either with
|location=New York
or|place=New York
). So, if we exclude the citation links, we still have 65 pages out of 132 pointing the wrong way, i.e. 49%, confirming my measurement that about half of the internal links to New York are meant for the city. — JFG talk 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)- JFG, thank you very much for taking the time to check - it's good to know that the pub location links aren't skewing those original results too much. Antepenultimate (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have also found a good share of those. It is routine to link publisher cities, and would probably be just as much work, if not more, to unlink those entirely. bd2412 T 00:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- JFG Sorry to dig up and old topic, but one question - of those 61 links intended for the city, how many were from a publisher's location parameter? (And can anyone point me to where it is discussed how such links in citations benefit readers of an article, and are not an example of WP:OVERLINK?) Antepenultimate (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Stats on my manual sample: 61 articles had links to New York meaning New York City, 67 meaning New York State and 19 had both kinds, so there were 54% of New York links pointing the wrong way, proving the lack of a primary topic. Massive cleanup required indeed… regardless of the outcome of the move review! — JFG talk 20:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This link shows how many backlinks to New York (state) there are.
- 120,189 to New York and 22,369 to New York (state), as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Power outage
Side topic, but I had to respond to the comments above that "most of New York is currently blacked out" could only apply to the city as the entire state losing power would be "impossible". Ɱ, you don't remember the Northeast blackout of 2003, which happened on a perfectly nice summer day? (But hot enough to cause significant A/C use) Caused by a software glitch. Now that we know an infected thumb drive took down a nuclear facility in Iran, it seems just a matter of time before some hackers do something similar with the power grid. wbm1058 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just going to interject here. Hackers did what?! That's really scary. But it's true that a lot of NY State's power comes from New York Power Authority, so a statewide blackout could be theoretically possible if all the NYPA workers went on strike and all the facilities were closed. However, that means that all these power companies' facilities would also have to go down. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- See Stuxnet. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ooh, spooky. I hope terrorists, or even worse, Donald Duck and Goofy fooling around with stuff, aren't going to use it to shut down the whole state. That would be quite disastrous...(@Wbm1058: thanks for the link, BTW.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- See Stuxnet. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The comment in question appeared to be just part of a jibe aimed at convincing others that I didn't know what I was talking about. I'm not too concerned by such rhetoric, although I did answer this particular attempt.
- Beware of the term "impossible" wherever technology is involved... and also of those who use the term... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Time to execute
The close above is in favour of Moving the state away from the base title, and moving the disambiguation page to the base title. There is no consensus for having either the city or the state to be the primary topic, and some participants think a primary topic does not exist.
Unless there is to be a move review, this should now happen. If there is to be a move review, I would recommend meantime moving only the article on the state, and redirecting New York to the DAB. This will at least stop the further leakage of mislinks. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Except several people are against the closure, and SSTflyer has said he is open to relisting it. So now, I do not think it is time. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- This will be a huge amount of work and if this somehow gets taken to MRV and overturned it will be all be an exceptionally massive waste of editor time. Basically I would say to the people who oppose this decision, file a MRV in the next say 48 hours or forever hold your peace. Filing a MRV now would be completely reasonable, waiting until major work has been done would be very disruptive. As an aside, if/when we do move this article we may as well move the dab page as well – redirecting to the dab achieves exactly the same thing except that it violates best practice. Jenks24 (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am doubtful that some of the parties to this discussion (on either side) will ever really give up. At some stage we need to implement the decision. I'm not convinced anything is achieved by waiting even 48 hours... or another seven days, see WP:MR#Closing reviews, or in the worst case scenario, both, one after the other. I suppose we will see. And I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- History suggests that there wouldn't be a swift resolution to the MRV, even if one were to be filed. They usually go on for quite some time before being closed. But I do see Jenks's point that it would be a big waste of time to do all the disambiguating only to find it wasn't necessary because someone voids the move discussion result. I hope that an MRV won't be filed, and in my admittedly biased mind, I think that even if one is filed, the close would ultimately be endorsed for giving more weight to policy arguments, but again if people do want to challenge, now is the time to do it. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding: Basically I would say to the people who oppose this decision, file a MRV in the next say 48 hours or forever hold your peace - You could probably extract such a promise from those who participated in this discussion. However, this discussion was so poorly advertised that many people who actually edit in this area will only become aware of this decision after they start seeing the (many) changes that will need to be made (I just happened to have one of the already-altered templates on my watchlist, the only reason I became aware of this). I don't think you can have any complete expectation that none of them will take this to MRV, and there is certainly grounds for a case, whether or not the decision is ultimately affirmed. Re-listing, and notifying the relevant WikiProjects, would possibly avoid some of this. Antepenultimate (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
. . .
Going back to the oldest discussions on this, as early as 2004 it was recognized that "Lots of the links to this article ought to be linked to New York City." However, as pointed out by Shereth in August 2008, the claim that more incoming links to [[New York]] are intended for the city is probably wrong. See User:Shereth/NYLinks. Past attempts to address this have failed because of poor implementation – generally they have attempted to do too much, too fast, which has triggered reversions. Clearly, and I believe there is consensus for this, there cannot be an article sitting on the [[New York]] page. This mislinking issue cannot be made to go away.
However, from that it does not follow that [[New York]] must be a disambiguation. Other options are (1) REDIRECT to New York (state) or (2) REDIRECT to New York City. The mislinking problem can be patrolled by bypassing all links to the [[New York]] redirect. The work to fix the mislinks should be done, and this work will not be wasted if [[New York]] remained a redirect to the nominal primary topic rather than moving the dab to the base name.
I note that when much of the previous discussion of this took place, the state of Washington was still at the base title. Washington moved to Washington (U.S. state) in May 2010 and then to Washington (state) in January 2011. I don't like the idea of telling the nice guys of that state that their state must be parenthetically disambiguated, while New York doesn't need to be. While the state's website does disambiguate with "NEW YORK STATE", as New York doesn't have a state university following the common naming convention as Oregon State, Montana State, Michigan State and Ohio State, Washington does and thus Washington State is a disambiguation. So I support using the parenthetical, rather than natural disambiguation.
Thus I endorse the decision to move New York → New York (state). If no objections are immediately forthcoming, I will do this shortly, or another admin is welcome execute this as well. Then the work of disambiguating and fixing the mislinks can begin. This process will take time. It will go faster if the nice guys who do this sort of work get some help. Once we get the rest of the templates changed, if we wait for the job queue bots to do their thing, we'll have a better idea of how much work is really needed. It seems daunting now, but might not be quite as bad as it looks.
Once that work has been completed we will have some new data, and be in a better position to assess the question of whether there's a nominal primary topic. I reserve the right to review that piece of this, and suggest editors show some patience here. I think past attempts to force this question have been at least partially responsible for keeping the more important need to avoid mislinks unaddressed until now. Yes, Schoharie, this is a hairy issue, but it need not turn into another Ireland. Maybe, as with Chihuahua eventually the disambiguation moves over the base name. Bow Wow! But, I'd rather not be a Speculator until we have better data as a result of the mislinks cleanup. Tricks such as using AWB to:
- find
County]], [[New York]]
and - replace with
County]], [[New York (state)|New York]]
and
- find
|subdivision_name1 = [[New York]]
- replace with
|subdivision_name1 = [[New York (state)|New York]]
should help. If we find more than a few hundred meeting that critria, yes a bot request could be used to fix them. wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Wbm1058: I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If the final decision is going to be to leave New York as a primary redirect to New York (state), then we shouldn't even bother to move it, because that would violate our usual naming rules concerning primary topics. From a reader point of view, the (state) would be redundant, as the main page was redirecting there anyway. I appreciate the value of being able to sort the incoming links, but you can still do that exercise with the state article here, it's just harder work because you don't have the catch all of being able to say nothing links to the base page, unless you point everything to the redirect page anyway. Editor convenience has never been one of the WP:CRITERIA. As I see it, and I'm attempting to be objective here, despite my personal belief that there is no primary topic, the move close above is not just to move this state article, but to assert that there's no primary topic between the city and the state, which implies that the dab page ends up here. Now that part can wait for a few weeks if necessary, until all the incoming links are fixed, but if there's some chance that the dab page won't be ultimately moved, then we need to establish that now, by MRV or any other means, not wait for a further decision at an unspecified point in the future, once a whole load of work has been done. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CRITERIA isn't concerned with redirects or primary topics. New York fails the precision criteria because the title does not unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. I think we have consensus on that point. We add the parenthetical to make the title sufficiently precise: New York (state). wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- A base name may redirect to the primary topic, for example the base name inverter redirects to the primary topic power inverter, as I believe I mentioned above. wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the two cases are comparable. Inverter redirects to power inverter because the latter is the WP:COMMONNAME for the device, whereas simply calling it "inverter" is a less common way of referring to that device. Similarly, Obama redirects to Barack Obama because (a) we almost always name people FirstName SurName, and (b) I would guess Barack Obama is a more common way to refer to him than simply Obama, even though he is the primary topic for Obama. I don't think either of these redirects exists solely to satisfy precision requirements. Indeed, if that were the case, we would never have a primary topic at the base name. But the whole point of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that in essence it supercedes the needs for precision, because the concept concerned has greater long term significance or is much more commonly ought than any others. Apple is not a redirect to Apple (fruit), despite the fact that it could clearly refer to either a fruit or a tech company. Instead, Apple is a fruit despite those precision issues, because it's been decided that is the primary topic. Similarly if New York state is decided to be the primary topic it has to reside at New York because New York (state) satisfies neither WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:NATURALDIS.
- Just to be clear, I believe that I and most others are acting under the assumption that the discussion above *is* a primary topic discussion, and the close as it stands explicitly asserts that there is no primary topic. Hence if this close remains the same after the end of the WP:MRV or a relist, then the dab page must eventually be moved to the base location. There would be no need for further discussion on that point if the move closure is endorsed. @Jenks24: does that match your understanding of how this process would play out? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- A base name may redirect to the primary topic, for example the base name inverter redirects to the primary topic power inverter, as I believe I mentioned above. wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CRITERIA isn't concerned with redirects or primary topics. New York fails the precision criteria because the title does not unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. I think we have consensus on that point. We add the parenthetical to make the title sufficiently precise: New York (state). wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. If the MRV is endorsed, the dab page will need to be moved to the base title as per the close and WP:MALPLACED. There would be nothing stopping future RMs if someone wanted to contend that the city is the primary topic (or even that the whole thing should be reversed and the state should become the primary topic again). Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
London Paris New York
Does MR really have a snowball's? Have a Google on London, Paris, New York and ask seriously, in most of the English-speaking world, what does New York mean? A look at Paris (disambiguation), London (disambiguation) and Washington (disambiguation) might also help perspective. Finally a look at this excellent article might help cleanse the palate (whether you agree with it or not) or failing that try this.
There are T-shirts in Australia that read London, Paris, New York, Turramurra (or whatever your favourite suburb is in place of Turramurra) and I'm sure they exist in other countries as well (if not there are some business opportunities).
We have I think established that there is a dialect of English in which New York means New York State, and that there are some Wikipedians whose strong good faith belief is that this applies to all or at least most English speakers. But there is also a rough consensus that this is not the case.
The question of whether New York City is the primary meaning of New York is of relatively little importance, and has not been settled (and I wish those who want to spend time on it the best of luck). But the more important question has been well and truly discussed. There are several ways of prolonging this discussion further, but none of them stand any chance of improving Wikipedia, in my opinion.
IMO there is no prospect of overturning that hard-won consensus, and it should now be respected. Andrewa (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The meaning there is obvious by the context. I can make a statement like, the cost of living index is high for Massachusetts, New York and California, while comparatively low for Mississippi and Arkansas. Who is reasonably going to think that I'm comparing an outlier city with states? The question is, what do people think of when there is no context provided? wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree 100%. And this is hard to measure... because there is always some context. Which is another reason the discussion has been so long and involved. But the basic point is, we seem to have a decision on the most important issue so far as providing the best reader experience is concerned. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose the minimal context is derived from the reader's location, to some extent.
- One point regarding "reader experience". I suppose there are different criteria for subjectively determining that. One often-mentioned criteria is minimizing the number of clicks needed to get to the desired topic. If they are using the search box, they already get a drop-down with the most likely targets. Right now New York is #1 on the search suggestion list, and New York City is #2. Moving to New York (state) will be helpful to the search experience, as it will remove any possible doubt (not that seeing New York City immediately below didn't likely already do that for most readers). It will be interesting to see whether the order in the search list flips after the move. But, disregarding the search box, if we make New York a disambiguation, that guarantees that every reader will need to make another click. If we redirect to either New York (state) or New York City then that means perhaps half the readers will not need to make another click, but those that do may need to make two more clicks. wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- We already have hatnotes on both this article and the New York City article that redirect to the other article. No doubt New York should not redirect to the city, because the state of New York is well-known in the English-speaking world, and we aren't all foreigners who think "Manhattan" when we hear "New York". (Also, it would make some links, like Yonkers, New York, make no sense if "New York" redirects to "New York City". Yonkers, New York (two links) also makes sense as Yonkers, New York (one link), but Yonkers is among the majority of New York localities that are not in NYC.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- You say No doubt New York should not redirect to the city, because the state of New York is well-known in the English-speaking world, and we aren't all foreigners who think "Manhattan" when we hear "New York". I think there is doubt, and can't see consensus either way on that, but that's a question for a new section. This RM has established that it shouldn't redirect to the State. Personally, I think that the city is the primary meaning (so disagree with you on that), but that it's acceptable to move the DAB to the undisambiguated name as if there's no primary meaning. That should happen short term, and if we can't get consensus as to whether there is a primary meaning, then the DAB should be at the undisambiguated name long term. Andrewa (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: I see your point, but I'm not quite sure the city is the primary topic. It depends on your proximity to NYC. If you are within NYC, as ten million people probably are now (it's a workday here), then "New York" definitely refers to the state. If you're on Long Island, northern New Jersey, most of Connecticut, or Upstate New York (not Upstate New York City), maybe you'd refer to the city as "New York," but you'd get a lot of confused people asking you, "where you from?". If you live in the rest of the U.S., "New York" can refer equally to the city or the state. If you are outside the U.S., "New York" almost definitely refers to the city, unless otherwise stated. So maybe a disambiguation page would, indeed, be the best way forward. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. I'm not claiming here that NYC is primary. That's a topic for another discussion; We have quite enough to talk about here without trying to decide that too. What I am claiming, strongly, is that New York State is not primary. And I'm even claiming that we have a rough consensus on that, and have had for some time. If I keep restating it, it's just to try to keep our focus on the issue at hand. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: I see your point, but I'm not quite sure the city is the primary topic. It depends on your proximity to NYC. If you are within NYC, as ten million people probably are now (it's a workday here), then "New York" definitely refers to the state. If you're on Long Island, northern New Jersey, most of Connecticut, or Upstate New York (not Upstate New York City), maybe you'd refer to the city as "New York," but you'd get a lot of confused people asking you, "where you from?". If you live in the rest of the U.S., "New York" can refer equally to the city or the state. If you are outside the U.S., "New York" almost definitely refers to the city, unless otherwise stated. So maybe a disambiguation page would, indeed, be the best way forward. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You say No doubt New York should not redirect to the city, because the state of New York is well-known in the English-speaking world, and we aren't all foreigners who think "Manhattan" when we hear "New York". I think there is doubt, and can't see consensus either way on that, but that's a question for a new section. This RM has established that it shouldn't redirect to the State. Personally, I think that the city is the primary meaning (so disagree with you on that), but that it's acceptable to move the DAB to the undisambiguated name as if there's no primary meaning. That should happen short term, and if we can't get consensus as to whether there is a primary meaning, then the DAB should be at the undisambiguated name long term. Andrewa (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- We already have hatnotes on both this article and the New York City article that redirect to the other article. No doubt New York should not redirect to the city, because the state of New York is well-known in the English-speaking world, and we aren't all foreigners who think "Manhattan" when we hear "New York". (Also, it would make some links, like Yonkers, New York, make no sense if "New York" redirects to "New York City". Yonkers, New York (two links) also makes sense as Yonkers, New York (one link), but Yonkers is among the majority of New York localities that are not in NYC.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree 100%. And this is hard to measure... because there is always some context. Which is another reason the discussion has been so long and involved. But the basic point is, we seem to have a decision on the most important issue so far as providing the best reader experience is concerned. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Context matters. In many contexts, it refers to the city, the metro area, or even the borough of Manhattan. In many more, though—especially in the U.S., where a third of the English-speaking population lives—it refers to the state, especially if you're trying to refer to a settlement like Buffalo, New York. And for people in the U.S., Buffalo is quite obviously not in New York City. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- So, this is going ahead, even among significant opposition? Looks like there was no consensus, which means no consensus to move anything. There would have to be consensus that there isn't a primary topic to go ahead with this, and that's not what I'm seeing from the RM. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, there doesn't have to be consensus that there isn't a primary topic. To move the article on New York State away from the name New York and change the resulting redirect, it's enough that we establish that New York State is not the primary topic... whether or not there is one. And we do have consensus on that. Andrewa (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- In order to move a page, there needs to be consensus that a page needs to be moved. There was no consensus here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with the first part, but see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus. The need to move the page follows logically and according to policy from the (very) rough consensus that NY State is not primary. Andrewa (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- In order to move a page, there needs to be consensus that a page needs to be moved. There was no consensus here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, the policy-based rationale for moving this is that New York fails the WP:precision criteria of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy because that title does not sufficiently distinguish from New York City. I agree that the "consensus" regarding primary topic is marginal at best; I encourage a new discussion on that when changing the New York redirect becomes feasible. Right now it's not, until the necessary preparation work is completed in the background. I have not changed, nor do I endorse a change in primary topic. The primary topic is still the state. wbm1058 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Tavix, and am surprised at administrators nonetheless proceeding. There was no consensus, this was closed admitting no consensus, and therefore read WP:NOCONSENSUS that after such an event, the long-standing title returns. This evidently needs more notification and discussion, there's a boatload of New York and Northeast editors who haven't said a word here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The primary topic is still the state. No, that's a dead issue. There's no evidence at all supporting it, nor any policy or guideline, just some strong opinions.
- The necessary preparation work...... Fascinated to hear exactly what this is, and when the change will become feasible... what are the criteria? The sooner the redirect is changed, the less work there will be. The redirect should change now. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Noting how Britannica disambiguates this, though it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us. Andrewa, I am quite aware of your position on this, and your continued filibustering is getting annoying. Somehow I've let myself wade into the kind of controversy that I generally avoid. It's not fun feeling heat from both sides. I get the sense that some don't care at all if we have hundreds of "New York" internal links that are not going to their intended targets. That makes our encyclopedia inaccurate, but my sense is you don't care about that. All you seem to care about is that the big bold title at the top is what your POV thinks it should be. If y'all insist on "all or nothing" I'll just revert my little concession to you, though I would like to see those internal links fixed that you don't seem to care about. Ɱ has a point, perhaps your "hard-won consensus" was won by not advertising this to our contingent of NY-based editors, who probably edit NY-related articles far more than the average European or Australian-based editor, and who just dismiss such discussions as "already decided" – until they are blindsided to find that they're not. wbm1058 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you see my contributions as a filibuster, and that you've concluded that I don't care about other issues, and that I'm pushing a POV. But I'm even sorrier that you've made a little concession to me. Please, in future, assess my arguments, and act on them alone.
- And I'm truly sorry that I'm annoying you. But I also think that what I have posted deserves a hearing. All of it. If I have been repetitive (and I have) it has been in response to arguments which were in themselves repetitive. If I seem to be writing walls of text, it's because I'm trying to help others to understand. No more.
- There's nothing in policy or guidelines that says we should advertise this to NY-based editors, or that they should have any greater say than others on article names, as far as I can see. Happy to be proven wrong on that. Wikiproject members should watch articles of interest to them, and advise others via legitimate channels, avoiding canvassing of course. I preach caution with that line of argument.
- It's not my consensus (if it exists). Yes, it's my claim that it exists, and that we should move on. (Sorry if that's restating my position.)
- Again, I'm truly sorry to have caused discomfort. This was never going to be easy. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am flabbergasted that such a drastic move could have been undertaken without giving me the courtesy of even informing me of this planned execution. I am one of the primary contributors to this page - never mind where I'm actually based. Had I known about this discussion, I would have expressed my unequivocal and vehement opposition to such a move. The status quo with the appropriate hatnotes has served very well all of these years. I feel that this should be reverted pending a true consensus being reached - which is NOT the case!! Castncoot (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense
Why was this article moved with New York still re-directing here?? Did the user who made the move want New York to re-direct to New York City?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- See the (lengthy) discussion above! But (at the risk of repeating myself) New York should redirect to the DAB (unless we can get consensus that it should redirect to New York City, which seems unlikely). Better still, move the DAB to New York (undisambiguated). Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am the one who started the whole discussion move. From what I said in the RM, New York does not have a primary meaning. It could equally mean the state (most US citizens think of the state when they say New York) or it could mean the city (foreign citizens usually think of the city when they hear New York), so I believe that "New York" should point to the dab page and not to the state. There is no primary meaning. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 05:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:CookieMonster755, I think the observation about US citizens vs others is so important (although I don't think it's quite that simple) that I've linked to that comment from the MR. [1] Hope that's OK with everyone! Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- New York currently has over
25,00075,000 incoming links. Those links must be fixed before this link can be changed to something other than a redirect to the longstanding primary topic. bd2412 T 23:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)- @BD2412: see #Implementation and #Backlinks. They have been warned. wbm1058 (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- More importantly, any such mass changes should be held off on until the move review is completed, lest they all need to be undone. In other words, BD, I'd suggest halting the bot for now. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am going to limit the bot to cases where the link needs to be retargeted to New York City. Those need to be fixed either way, and they tend to cluster with references to NYC institutions, other major cities, or places of publication. bd2412 T 16:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- More importantly, any such mass changes should be held off on until the move review is completed, lest they all need to be undone. In other words, BD, I'd suggest halting the bot for now. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BD2412: see #Implementation and #Backlinks. They have been warned. wbm1058 (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- New York currently has over
- User:CookieMonster755, I think the observation about US citizens vs others is so important (although I don't think it's quite that simple) that I've linked to that comment from the MR. [1] Hope that's OK with everyone! Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am the one who started the whole discussion move. From what I said in the RM, New York does not have a primary meaning. It could equally mean the state (most US citizens think of the state when they say New York) or it could mean the city (foreign citizens usually think of the city when they hear New York), so I believe that "New York" should point to the dab page and not to the state. There is no primary meaning. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 05:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The population of the New York metropolitan area is over 20 million people, but a lot of those live in New Jersey and Connecticut. The entire state of New York has less than 20 million residents. But, if you throw out the out-of-state "New Yorkers", and limit "the city" to just Yonkers / Westchester and the close-in Long Island suburbs, then roughly half the state does not live in "the city". To anyone who doesn't live in the city, "New York" generally means the state. Upstate is "Main Street" New York. Once the Empire State, proud factory to the world. A lot of those towns are shells of what they were at their peak. It won't surprise me if a lot of them vote for Trump, though Hillary is most likely winning the state as a whole.
It will take a while for some to get used to the idea that Wikipedia has a "worldwide" point-of-view. Yes, New York increasingly begins and ends with Wall Street. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Often living in Westchester anyway, New York still generally means the state. Manhattanites and generally city folks have a narrow view of New York, often even excluding the Bronx. It's pretty strange. I wish there were more to go on than personal testimonies; some sort of survey or study, though perhaps that's why such a broad consensus needs to be reached. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ɱ: I thought these Manhattanites and general city folks excluded Staten Island? Oh well. Not many people really pay attention to Stinkin' Island, anyway. Strange. (And there was a secession referendum for Staten Island once, though. Apparently
StatenStinkin' Island didn't like to be part of New York.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ɱ: I thought these Manhattanites and general city folks excluded Staten Island? Oh well. Not many people really pay attention to Stinkin' Island, anyway. Strange. (And there was a secession referendum for Staten Island once, though. Apparently
- Comment I didn't get a chance to voice my opinion in the RM, but I would have been holheartedly against it. I'm very surprised that the closer came to the conclusion that he did.JOJ Hutton 14:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Jojhutton: The closure is under review, so you might get your chance to opine after all. Best, -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- All please note the instructions at MR: While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. [2] (Emphasis as on that page.) If the decision is to relist (as seems likely), then is the time to re-argue the case. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- If it's relisted, then others will be able to opine in the RM discussion. That's all I'm saying... -- Tavix (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And nobody bothered to inform me, either. Get over it. There is a move review happening right now. Chime in there. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 07:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Castncoot raises a valid point. I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Notify substantial contributors to articles? wbm1058 (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, if I sounded rude. I fully support a relist or overturn to the "no consensus" position. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- This article should have just been left as New York, not renamed to redirect to "New York (state)". It is just New York, but someone (he is on this page) decided to edit a lot of articles to redirect to New York from "New York (state)". I disagree with it.—Bde1982 18:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- What's wrong with that? I liked the change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Bde1982 aka User:BDE1982, it would be helpful to say why you think this.
- It would also be helpful to sign in the usual four-tilde way. You've been here a while [4] so I'm a bit surprised you haven't got the hang of it yet... if I can help, drop me a line on my talk page. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Andrewa, I no longer edit under my BDE1982 profile. That was an alternate. This one, bde1982, is the one I used in the beginning and I will use it from now on.—Bde1982 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- This article should have just been left as New York, not renamed to redirect to "New York (state)". It is just New York, but someone (he is on this page) decided to edit a lot of articles to redirect to New York from "New York (state)". I disagree with it.—Bde1982 18:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, if I sounded rude. I fully support a relist or overturn to the "no consensus" position. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Foreshadowing
I'm hoping that either the MR will endorse the close as moved to New York (State), or that the relisting will produce the same result. But there's a risk that the move will be reopened and then eventually closed as Not moved, no consensus.
In that event I think the following actions would be reasonable:
1. Have a discussion as to whether the higher-level jurisdiction criterion should, in this instance, be allowed to override the two criteria explicitly suggested in the guideline. I have started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#higher-level jurisdiction criterion. Depending on the outcome:
- If there is consensus that it should not, then I intend to proceed to step 2.
- If there is consensus that it should, then I will conclude that the primary meaning of New York is in fact the state, and modify my voting accordingly.
- If there is no consensus, then I'll probably leave it to others to decide what to do next if anything. I may get involved in things others initiate, or not.
2. Have a discussion on whether New York State is the primary meaning of New York. Depending on the outcome:
- If there is consensus that it is not, then proceed to step 3.
- If there is consensus that it is, then I will modify my voting accordingly.
- If there is no consensus, then I'll probably leave it to others to decide what to do next if anything.
3. Initiate a new RM based on the consensus that New York State is not the primary meaning of New York.
I hope that's a reasonable approach.
Of course its success would depend on goodwill and focus. There have already been a number of off-topic posts at the discussion I initiated in step 1. Obviously these can derail the process, either accidentally or deliberately.
I foreshadow these moves in the hope that they won't be necessary. Long term I think the logic of having New York point to what most of the English-speaking world mean by New York, in conformity to our well-established naming conventions, will win out. But the RM and MR have both been heated and messy.
My personal view of course is that New York should be an article on NYC, that having it as a DAB is acceptable (and let's move on), but that having the state there makes a mockery of our guidelines. But that it's not worth busting a blood vessel over either, and should be decided logically and by consensus. Andrewa (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- That last paragraph neatly sums up what I was about to write. If someone says they're in New York, I wouldn't start looking in Albany. Certes (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Certes: See WP:NWFCTM (a subsection of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Antepenultimate (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that WP:NWFCTM is relevant, in fact I think that both sides of this discussion should reread it carefully.
- But without wanting to put words into User:Certes' mouth, User:Antepenultimate, I took that to mean that neither would many others think it might mean Albany. And that's a valid point, if true, under the usage criterion. And I think it is true. Do you? Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Geesh. We're talking about 54,000+ square miles. If I wanted to find this person, I would first ask where in New York they were, before I started wandering aimlessly. And, no, I wouldn't assume they were in the city unless there was some context in our conversation from which to make that assumption. wbm1058 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going on a 50 mile backpacking trip for my holiday. Oh, where are you backpacking? In New York. Great. Sounds like fun.
- I'm going to see the Reds playing on the road next month. Where? In New York. Great. Mets or Yankees?
- I'm editing the Wikipedia article about New York. Awesome. Which one? wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- It seems again to be a dialect difference. If I said to someone "I'm going to visit my cousin who lives in New York" with their having no previous knowledge of where my (hypothetical) cousin lives, I would expect them to understand New York city. In some cases, obviously from this discussion, I would be wrong. Language is like that. The question is, what is the common understanding? Is it New York City, or New York State, or isn't there one?
- I can see arguments both ways as to whether there is one. But if there is a primary meaning, I can see no evidence at all that it's New York state. That being so, I can see many procedural arguments that can and do delay the decision to move the New York State article away from the (precious) name New York.
- But unless it's the primary meaning, it shouldn't be there. Should it? Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you were an Upstate resident speaking to a fellow Upstate resident in someplace Upstate, then "I'm going to visit my cousin who lives in New York" would likely be understood to mean the city, but even then, you would be more likely to say "New York City" or "the city" I think. Because if it were somewhere else (Rochester, Utica) you would say so. Out of state, there is an intuitive need to be more specific; you would be more likely to say "New York City" or "Upstate New York", or "Jamestown, New York".
- Again, context matters. If you're talking backpacking, "New York" means Upstate (think Adirondacks, Catskills, Taconics)... Who won New York's electoral votes? That's about entire state. New York has a nice subway system. Now we mean the city. So the big question is, in the context of an encyclopedia, what do you expect the scope of the article titled New York to be? I think the majority of New York residents would say, the (entire) state. I understand that foreigners have different expectations in this regard. Most, if not all, of the 50 states have disambiguation pages (I was a bit surprised to find that to be the case). We don't put Michigan at Michigan (state)... I'm a bit surprised to see that's not a red link, though there is a Michigan (disambiguation) page. I could imagine some Michigan residents getting a little upset to see that "(state)" "defacing" the title... New Yorkers should be more understanding, but some of that emotion seems to be in play here. Hmm, Victoria (Australia), not Victoria (state), it seems like they're saying that In Australia, the state is the primary topic for Victoria, not the queen or some girl's name. New York (New York), New York (United States), lol. wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which suggests to me that in this case there may be no primary meaning. But it doesn't lend one shred of credence to the claim that the primary meaning is New York State. Does it? Have I missed something? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You ask what an encyclopedia should have at that title... well Britannica has no article titled New York. I guess that's their equivalent of a dab page - when you query it you just get search results including New York (state, United States) and New York City (New York, United States). [5] — Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I made this observation earlier, back in § London Paris New York, "
it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us.
" Note that the New York City article has a subtitle "New York, United States" which indicates where New York City is. And the article about the state. which is at the Primary Topic title New York, has a subtitle "State, United States" which tells us what and where it is. This is a grey zone; observe that the URL does include "state" in lower case: www.britannica.com/place/New-York-state – Frankly Britannica handles this more elegantly than our current software allows us to. wbm1058 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)- They actually have nothing sitting at https://www.britannica.com/place/New-York – this may be a way to ensure that their editors get it right (the city is at https://www.britannica.com/place/New-York-City) – wbm1058 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, FWIW, Ireland in Britannica is about the country, and they don't put a subtitle on that article, so they feel no need to have a subtitle like (Country, Ireland) to say what and where it is. As far as I can tell, they do not have a separate article about the island itself, just an article on Northern Ireland. And it seems that all searches land you on the search results page. So the fact that searching New York didn't go directly to the article about the state should not be interpreted to mean that Britannica doesn't consider it a "primary topic". They just may not have such a construct in the same way that we do. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I made this observation earlier, back in § London Paris New York, "
- You ask what an encyclopedia should have at that title... well Britannica has no article titled New York. I guess that's their equivalent of a dab page - when you query it you just get search results including New York (state, United States) and New York City (New York, United States). [5] — Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which suggests to me that in this case there may be no primary meaning. But it doesn't lend one shred of credence to the claim that the primary meaning is New York State. Does it? Have I missed something? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Geesh. We're talking about 54,000+ square miles. If I wanted to find this person, I would first ask where in New York they were, before I started wandering aimlessly. And, no, I wouldn't assume they were in the city unless there was some context in our conversation from which to make that assumption. wbm1058 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- But without wanting to put words into User:Certes' mouth, User:Antepenultimate, I took that to mean that neither would many others think it might mean Albany. And that's a valid point, if true, under the usage criterion. And I think it is true. Do you? Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- I apologise for making a vague and flippant remark before going away for a week, though it has produced a useful discussion. Yes, taken literally, what I wrote is irrelevant per WP:NWFCTM. I meant to imply that State is not much more likely than City to be the topic sought when a reader searches for New York, so shouldn't be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is City much more likely? From other responses, I get the impression "yes, except for readers in the USA", so the decision between a redirect to New York City and a dab page seems marginal to me. (I am British, with no connection to New York city or state.) Certes (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well said... but what matters now is presenting evidence of this when the new RM opens on Friday. (And don't jump the gun, the admin who set it up has enough to do as is.) Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Refocus
Most of the above relates to step 2 (Is New York State the primary meaning of New York, or not?), which may not even occur.
To help with step 1, I've started an essay at wp:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. See Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think that this new page you have created will over the long run affirm the legitimacy of the status quo of the past 10+ years, with the state being entitled "New York" and the city being entitled "New York City". In any case, New York City is a direct progeny of New York, being classified on the city's own page as one of the Regions of New York, so it's a moot point anyway. This misguided move needs to be overturned, and at the very least, it should be reverted and re-listed so that everybody who has commented on this page's move closure review will be on equal footing to start a comment process. Castncoot (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you are right about the new page at WP:HLJC. As said above, if we can build consensus supporting this principle, then it will solve everything. And it's not a bad principle. It's just not IMO what past consensus has supported, and I don't expect support for it now. We will see. Andrewa (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Votes not to move and objections to lack of notification (off-topic)
- Placing my vote to oppose the move here, removing from the Survey Comment field, which I didn't see until today and misunderstood why it was still editable:
- Oppose the move. New York City is classified as one of the Region of New York and is therefore a direct progeny of New York. There are over 11 million people who live in New York who don't live in New York City. There are also roughly 50,000 square miles of geographic features in New York, outside of New York City. It's not just about population. Castncoot (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the move. For all the reasons eloquently stated above by User:Castncoot. A move this drastic should have been repeatedly aired on this talk page, the village pump, and talk pages for obviously related articles like U.S. state three or four times before doing anything to make sure everyone who needed to know was duly notified, so that a solid consensus could be established one way or the other. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Castncoot, User:Coolcaesar, I don't think this is the place to support or oppose the move. If it's relisted, then is the time and place. (But please don't fix it now, that just makes it more confusing. If you like we can just hide both those votes and this comment... would that be agreeable to you both?) Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, what you should do is mark the above votes with a box that says that there is no vote in progress unless and until another is listed and don't add any more for now. But I don't think hiding them is the solution either. I would support relisting the proposed move and publicizing it far more thoroughly. It looks like to me that you didn't work that hard to build consensus on an issue this important. If it were an issue I cared about, I certainly would have posted it on the talk pages for all the major articles related to U.S. states (state governments, state legislatures, state supreme courts, etc.) and repeatedly posted it to the village pump over several weeks to ensure that everyone who needed to know was actually notified. For example, I have always adhered to the positions that the U.S. state of Georgia is far more important in every way than an impoverished former republic of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. city of San Jose, California is far more important than the capital of a developing country in Central America, so it makes no sense that Georgia and San Jose both point to disambiguation pages. If I ever wanted to open that Pandora's box, I would certainly go above and beyond the call of duty to publicize the proposed article moves first in order to make a solid record that anyone who needed to know was notified and had a full and fair opportunity to voice their opinion.
- Thus, as far as I am concerned, there was no true consensus in this instance to begin with. What is deeply troubling to me is that you did not publicize this move properly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Coolcaesar: Just adding a subheading to separate this from the main discussion will do the trick as far as I am concerned... I hope that is acceptable to you both. Done above.
- Now, about the lack of notification... Do you really think this was my job? The move was by my recollection already in the backlog when I first became involved.
- Or, do you think it was the job of the nom? Should we update WP:RM to make this explicit? There's been some discussion of this elsewhere, and no consensus that it's required.
MR result
Well, we're going to have a new and hopefully neater RM discussion, see below. No surprise there, and we need to see how it goes. There is every possibility that the closers of that RM will make recommendations that affect my foreshadowed program.
But it, and particularly WP:HLJC and WT:HLJC, may well be referenced in the new RM. It would be good to keep discussion on the HLJC on those pages, IMO, rather than cluttering the new RM with side issues. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- This "HLJC" thing has no consensus, is not backed up by existing articles, and is merely an essay on a likely minority viewpoint at the moment. I suggest that it is kept out of the future discussion, since it contradicts the current wording of WP:PTOPIC. On that subject, you did ask me a question about this yesterday Andrewa, and I will hopefully get back to you on when I have a chance. I don't know if it's ever been explicitly rejected for the narrow subset of cases where the subentity has the same name as the higher entity, but the higher entity is not primary. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- User:Amakuru, Agree that it would be far better if this non-criterion was kept out of the new RM completely, but I don't see any chance of achieving that. In my opinion User:Castncoot will appeal to it and the related concept of "progeny" articles. I could be wrong and hope I am... we will see.
- Well fair enough, I see what you mean, but I would hope that contributions referring to rules that don't have the community's consensus, and indeed, have never been written down at all, until you and Castncoot started penning the essay in question. A parallel case was the essay now at User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle; this used to be at WP:Yogurt rule, and its author, Born2cycle would frequently cite it in move discussions. Eventually other editors got annoyed that a rule that hadn't passed the community's consensus test was being repeatedly used, and had the essay userfied. If you want my opinion on HLJC, I think it applies by default in many cases because very often the higher level entity will be primary topic anyway. But in other cases, such as Lima vs Lima Province, or Lagos vs Lagos State, a major city is either primary or co-primary with its containing HLJC; I think New York is in that situation, and the HLJC is just being used as a special case in this instance, to justify NY state as primary when there's little other evidence that it's primary. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree.
- I'd forgotten about the Yoghurt Principle, but I was one of the editors it annoyed! I don't think I evknew it had been (finally) userfied, but you might note that I've suggested that as the possible afte of draft:New York and it might happen to HLJC essay too. 23:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Confused as to which subpage... the new RM is not yet open as I understand it? Andrewa (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- (As per my talk page), the RM is not open for voting; this is the time for writing out the arguments for the move (which policies you believe are applicable, what results show from page views, incoming link statistics, usage and citations in the outside world). Opposers should take this time to craft their own arguments in the following section. This should read like a proposal for each, not a discussion within those sections. The discussion will take place in the discussion section when the initial statements are finished, and the proposal is formally launched. bd2412 T 00:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Confused as to which subpage... the new RM is not yet open as I understand it? Andrewa (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Move review closure
I have closed the move review as overturn and relist. I have created a dedicated subpage at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, for a new, complete, and well-advertised discussion on this topic to be initiated one week from today. I have relied on Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request for guidance in structuring this process. I strongly recommend enlisting a three-admin panel for closure of the discussion (or a panel of two admins and a non-admin volunteer who is well-versed in move discussions). Of course, this is just my judgment on the matter, and the conditions or structure of such a discussion are subject to community determinations that they should be carried out other than as I have proposed. Please make appropriate notices to any affected projects. bd2412 T 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Has anyone seriously proposed "a broad concept page on geographic uses of "New York" at this title"? If so, fine, but I'd say that option could probably be safely removed if not. SnowFire (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- It has been discussed some on this page. It's really up to those who write the actual move proposal to determine what options they want to put on the table. bd2412 T 00:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- See also Talk:New York (disambiguation)#Broad concept article proposal. PaleAqua (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I proposed the BCA it but will not be voting for it... I thought it had been proposed by another user but I had misunderstood them. It seems to me that it's a far better solution than the DAB for several reasons, only one of which is that it addresses most of the arguments put by those opposing, and particularly by those appealing to the HLJC and its variants. So it's my second pick (my first is that the primary meaning is NYC, but that may well not get sufficient support). Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned
I am concerned that despite widespread support for relisting, there has so far been no input at all at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Argument and evidence in opposition to moving the page, which has been open for some days but will shortly be closed and the new move opened for discussion.
I have posted three other heads-ups so far, here, here and here. Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- As I understood it, we're not supposed to post anything there until the 14th. — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your understanding is incorrect. The proposal is supposed to be written now, and should be completed by the 14th. The discussion on the proposal will begin then. bd2412 T 19:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- If more time is needed to craft the proposal (and for those opposed to the proposal to outline their points of opposition), we can put this process off for some additional time. bd2412 T 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- yes, I think that would be a good idea. Your wording last week clearly said that nothing would take place until the 14th. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was also misled by the initial wording of the new RM, and of the notice of it. I think it's clear on the RM page now that bd2412 has added some section hatnotes, but that only works if people can be motivated to go there and read them before the 14th. So, what other heads-ups are required, do you think? Are the three I have posted (see above) adequately worded?
- I am particularly concerned about User:Castncoot who was reverted [6] on the 8th and hasn't edited anything since the 9th, so they may be missing out on this clarification. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- True, the "oppose" side is lacking on evidence at the moment, and much as I disagree with their arguments, it would also not be fair to go ahead without them having a chance to say something. You've pinged Castncoot on their talk page, and here, so not sure there's too much more you can do if they're off wiki. An email perhaps?
- As for me, I will try and add a few things before tomorrow evening, although generally I quite like what yuo've already written. You've summed up the argument that there's no primary topic quite nicely. I will maybe scout around for some more third party evidence. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Per the above, I have extended the launch date to the 18th. bd2412 T 13:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Castncoot is now back editing, it was just some real life commitments, they've both responded to my heads-up and added some oppose arguments (as well as finding time to get on with our core business of improving articles). All good, and thanks for responding to my nervous nellying. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, real life has a way of doing that sometimes! Just wondering perhaps, would it be better not to introduce a Discussion 2 as outlined, unless Discussion 1 were to lead to a move? I'm concerned that the very presence of that second discussion as outlined could at the very least confuse the issue and at worst introduce bias, as opposers of the move in the first place would be at a loss for words as to what to even state in that spot. A suggestion might be to remove or close that second discussion until/unless it becomes relevant. Best, Castncoot (talk)
- yes, I think that would be a good idea. Your wording last week clearly said that nothing would take place until the 14th. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: Ya think? Visitors have a clue what is going on here. There is no mention of any upcoming action on the New York page (because the RfM is somehow "not open yet"). If there actually 'is' such a thing as an RfM that is "not open yet" (how absurd), then WHY is there no hatnote on the New York page saying "an RfM will be opened on..."? Even this Talk page glaringly lacks the needed new section for the second (July) RfM. The section "Requested move 18 July 2016" should already be there, even though it is "in the future", because someone has imagineered the possibility of a future-dated RfM. Even though there is an article named "Talk:New York/July 2016 move request" (which should actually be named "Talk:Requested move 18 July 2016", no?), it should have a section "Requested move 18 July 2016" (regardless), so that someone has an idea that something is (or will be) going on. I see rampant ineptitude and possible conflict of interest (one of the admins runs a bot that has no stop button). I congratulate all on making a quagmire of this. The only plus point here is that all these unnecessary and chaotic mis-actions, all this grinding to fix something that isn't broken, instead of doing something useful, won't actually make Wikipedia unusable. (I would like to put Donald Trump on this task, but only because it will destroy him.) The best response is to walk away. Editors and administrators, just walk away from this. No need to act, because there is no need to decide. Throw WP to the dogs. I see issue after issue mis-handled in ways like this one, for example 7-day notice posted one day before, then action taken, and no one will revert it on principle because a great one mis-used his authority. Rule that, all-wise admins.
- This action started with "Requested move 9 June 2016". SSTFlyer closed and re-closed (is there even such a thing?) the Move request on 18 June. Next, the outcome was controverted and listed at Move review, on 21 June (mentioned here, just above). Next, bd2412 closed that Move review as Overturn and relist (never made clear whether "overturn" means full undo or just revert to undecided), on 7 July. The new RfM was pre-listed for initial discussion at Talk:New_York/July 2016 move request (instead of on this page), on 7 July. The "re-listing" (new Move request) will not be "filed" and real discussion begin (there, not here) until
14 July22:00 18 July 2016 (is there even such a thing as a deferred RfM? (And they're actually deleting comments!)). -A876 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)- "Overturn" always means a return to the status quo ante. Relisting was the consensus result of participants in the discussion. I don't see how a deferred RM (something that we have done several times for high-profile discussions) is in any way worse than an RM initiated with no advance notice at all. As for publicizing the discussion, that is up to the participants. Obviously it is being discussed here, and it has already been noticed on the WikiProject talk page. We never hatnote the actual articles for RM discussions. bd2412 T 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 19 July 2016
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– See Talk:New York/July 2016 move request Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: The closure of this discussion will be conducted by a panel consisting of Future Perfect at Sunrise, Niceguyedc, and Newyorkbrad. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?
Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"? — JFG talk 10:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Several long-wided discussions have taken place over 11 years to ascertain whether New York City or New York State should be titled "New York", or whether this should be a disambiguation page. The most recent debate has seen extensive participation and the appointed three-person panel has not delivered a common closing statement more than a month after the discussion was hatted. The question of primary topic was one of several arguments in the discussion, however it has not been answered conclusively: editors are divided on whether there is indeed a primary topic for the "New York" term, and if there is one, whether it is the state or the city. The goal of this RFC is to settle this question.
Feel free to refer to any argument previously developed, or dig out new ones, however please focus your answer on the question asked, Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?, answering Yes or No. This poll will hopefully bring extra information to facilitate the closing of the titling debate or fuel further discussions on the issue. — JFG talk 10:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Notified Talk:New York City, Talk:New York (disambiguation), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. — JFG talk 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Opinions
Please answer Yes or No with a short rationale in this section.
- No NYC is the primary topic for the term, but I believe that the state article could be easily retitled as New York (State). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. Pppery (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME directly contradicts the idea that only official names count for potential article titles. ~ Rob13Talk 14:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- The official name of New York City is 'City of New York', not 'New York City'. Likewise, the official name of New York State is 'State of New York'. This argument makes no sense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. It seems likely the primary topic issue will be punted on at the move request. Since we name articles based on primary topic, we should establish this before the next move request. Given the arguments at the move request, it's obvious New York State isn't primary. I don't think the city is either. ~ Rob13Talk 14:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. It simply and obviously fails both PT criteria, evidence and policy have both been cited to support this, and there has been no serious, evidence or policy-based suggestion otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. For many English speakers, "New York" refers to the city. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. NYC is the primary topic for NY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Why? Pppery (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Long-term, wide-ranging significance. New York was a city before the colony bounded as we know it existed. New York was a world-significant city before the the colonies even unified to consider independence. New York has for hundreds of years been the most important entry point into the New World. There is more economic and social significant to whether you are a true New Yorker or a commuter from New Jersey, than if you are in upstate New York or across the border in Pennsylvania. US state borders have an academic federal political topicality, but in nearly every other respect the world's megacities are far more important subjects.
That said, the reason the status quo is not a problem is because New York State and New York City are not independent of each other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- For an article to be the primary topic, is not enough that it is highly important or significant; it needs to be much more important than other topics competing for the title. Do you consider New York city to be much more historically significant than New York state? Diego (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, because the name of the state is derivative of the city. That makes the city the default primary topic, and I don't think the state overcomes the significance of the city considering so many aspects. If the two topics were independent, neither derivative on the other, then there would be no primary topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- For an article to be the primary topic, is not enough that it is highly important or significant; it needs to be much more important than other topics competing for the title. Do you consider New York city to be much more historically significant than New York state? Diego (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Long-term, wide-ranging significance. New York was a city before the colony bounded as we know it existed. New York was a world-significant city before the the colonies even unified to consider independence. New York has for hundreds of years been the most important entry point into the New World. There is more economic and social significant to whether you are a true New Yorker or a commuter from New Jersey, than if you are in upstate New York or across the border in Pennsylvania. US state borders have an academic federal political topicality, but in nearly every other respect the world's megacities are far more important subjects.
- Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Andrewa, is that an instruction, or a reference to something specific below? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good question. It was intended to be read see my comment below, to keep the Opinions section as uncluttered as possible, but could equally be read as Please comment below, for the same reason... except that reading doesn't make much sense unless you read my comment below first... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Andrewa, is that an instruction, or a reference to something specific below? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Why? Pppery (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No – There is no primary topic. Both the city and state are called New York, one merely the 'City of New York', and the other the 'State of New York'. The significance of the city internationally is far too great to allow the state to take primary topic status. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. City has greater global importance and slightly more incoming links (even counting for State the links to [[New York]] that were meant for the city and the Doe was born in [[Anytown]], [[New York]] state links that are rarely followed). Probably no primary topic; if there is one it's the city. Certes (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Recognizing that TITLE policy requires that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject, and that Primary Topic states: "[t]here is no single criterion for defining a primary topic," New York has greater population and area than any other competing topic it is thus vastly more significant in real metrics (not feeling metrics) under ptopic. New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York, and the present city was created on January 1, 1898, under the laws of New York, and its area and people are more than encompassed by New York all making it more significant in law and in fact, under ptopic. Past discussions have shown that those who think of The City are thinking of New York County (aka, Manhattan) not New York City, thus New York City is less significant in their eyes, than New York County. Compare that, like Hillary Clinton, who may be the next president of the United States, was the junior Senator of New York, not the city, the electors of New York will select the President, not the city, thus again much more significant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but where does WP:TITLE make such a thing as "requiring that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject"? The policy is very clear that the decision process is to be made by consensus, with a basis on how reliable sources discuss the topic; there's nothing in it limiting the characteristics of editors that may participate in the decision. If you're talking either about the Recognizability or WP:CONCISE criteria, in both cases they're talking about what is familiar to readers, not the editors making the decision. And I might say, the current title makes a poor work at fulfilling the naming criteria, as familiar readers will have problems determining which is the topic from the ambiguous name, which fails to have enough WP:PRECISION for that. Diego (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- You've made contradictory assertions, being familiar with the RS on the topic also is familiarity with the topic, and yes those familiar with the topic of New York, will know well the state. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, but then they will also be familiar with the sources for the city, so that criterion doesn't make the state stand out over the city in any way. Therefore that criterion contributes nothing towards the state being primary. Diego (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- That and the other things do make it stand out (eg. if, in fact, you wiped New York off the face of the earth, then NYC does not exist, but if you wiped the city off the face of the earth there is still New York) and familiarity with New York and/or New York City presents no cause for confusion - those who are familiar are by definition well aware. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me if I can't follow your reasoning at all. How is any of that related in any way with leading readers to the article they want to read, which is the focus of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline? And it still doesn't explain how knowing about the city and the state makes the latter more important in terms of familiarity with the topic, when the editor is equally aware of both. Diego (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Come now. I hope, your 'I don't understand' is not really you disagree. Focus on what primary topic and wp:title actually say and the real factual metrics regarding significance and educational value I already provided, and not your feelings about what you speculate others may want - your speculation about others is not policy, and is certainly no basis for consensus. "Hillary Clinton was the junior senator representing New York", is perfectly clear, natural and concise (it also references the Primary Topic by real measures of significance) and familiarity is the express requirement of WP:Title because it would make no sense for an actual encyclopedia to have those unfamiliar with the topics choose titles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Rudy Giuliani was the mayor of New York" is also perfectly clear, but it doesn't mean he was mayor of the state. — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- He was the mayor of New York City, created in 1898 under the laws of New York. Clear, concise, natural. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. Cornelius Lawrence was the first popularly elected Mayor of New York City after the law was changed in 1834 according to his article (Wikilink also as per that article). To say the city was created in 1898 (except in a very limited context) is confused, misleading and artificial. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, if you are confused by the 1898 change that created the present New York City, and Giuliani was mayor of that city, but topic knowledge is important, and your confusion does not evidence it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- The article New York City is not only about "the present New York City" (I assume you mean after the consolidation?), it covers the history of the location as well. Diego (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- As an encyclopedia article on New York City, its focus is the present city, but sure the subject of New York City is broader than those in your column seem to know, and New York is broader still. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- And the focus of the current New York article is the state. And that is the whole problem. And suggestions to broaden its scope are being rejected, for no obvious and valid reason (the obvious but invalid reason being that some New-York-etc-ers want to continue to impose their local naming convention). Andrewa (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The present New York encompasses the present New York City. That's not a problem that's just a fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The present meaning of New York is exactly the topic under discussion. Calling your opinion on it a fact (as you have done elsewhere as well) doesn't make it one, and doesn't seem particularly helpful. You are as entitled to your opinions as any of us. But your insistence that they are fact makes building consensus rather difficult. Of course hindering consensus favours the oppose case, but I imagine you are aware of that. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. We are not discussing meaning, we are discussing topics, no wonder you reject facts: New York City is within New York, the City of New York is within the state, and real metrics show the state more significant in real terms than only the city -- similarly, the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma and the Republic of Ireland is in Ireland. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Don't confuse them with facts, Alanscottwalker. Castncoot (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- See #Meaning, topics, facts below. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Don't confuse them with facts, Alanscottwalker. Castncoot (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. We are not discussing meaning, we are discussing topics, no wonder you reject facts: New York City is within New York, the City of New York is within the state, and real metrics show the state more significant in real terms than only the city -- similarly, the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma and the Republic of Ireland is in Ireland. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- The present meaning of New York is exactly the topic under discussion. Calling your opinion on it a fact (as you have done elsewhere as well) doesn't make it one, and doesn't seem particularly helpful. You are as entitled to your opinions as any of us. But your insistence that they are fact makes building consensus rather difficult. Of course hindering consensus favours the oppose case, but I imagine you are aware of that. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The present New York encompasses the present New York City. That's not a problem that's just a fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- And the focus of the current New York article is the state. And that is the whole problem. And suggestions to broaden its scope are being rejected, for no obvious and valid reason (the obvious but invalid reason being that some New-York-etc-ers want to continue to impose their local naming convention). Andrewa (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- As an encyclopedia article on New York City, its focus is the present city, but sure the subject of New York City is broader than those in your column seem to know, and New York is broader still. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- The article New York City is not only about "the present New York City" (I assume you mean after the consolidation?), it covers the history of the location as well. Diego (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, if you are confused by the 1898 change that created the present New York City, and Giuliani was mayor of that city, but topic knowledge is important, and your confusion does not evidence it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. Cornelius Lawrence was the first popularly elected Mayor of New York City after the law was changed in 1834 according to his article (Wikilink also as per that article). To say the city was created in 1898 (except in a very limited context) is confused, misleading and artificial. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- He was the mayor of New York City, created in 1898 under the laws of New York. Clear, concise, natural. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- What I don't understand is why an argument like "Clinton was the junior senator representing New York" makes you believe that the state is much more historically relevant (in a historic or educational way) than the city, when the city has a wealth of equivalent historical facts of its own, which similarly represent real measures of significance. I can only make sense of your assertion (i.e. that this is enough for the state to be the primary topic), if you intend it to mean that the historical facts regarding the state have inherently more importance than those regarding the city; in which case, yes, I do disagree.
- As for the city being located within the territory of the state, that has never been on its own a reason to consider the larger territory the primary one. Counterexamples like Madrid, Paris or Murcia show that the city within the homonimous territory may be the primary topic itself.
- And regarding what others may want, the text of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: "highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", so what others may want to read is definitely something to take into account. In either of the major aspects (primary by usage or long-term significance) the primary topic needs to be much more relevant than the other topics, which I simply don't see here. Diego (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- What's not to see, about Birth's in New York City are Births in New York, Universities in New York City are Universities in New York . . . cultural institutions, people, area, and on, and on, and on. As for the state's historical relevance, as state in the United States it is more historically relevant and powerful (presidential electors, laws, sovereignty, just a few examples), everyday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Rudy Giuliani was the mayor of New York" is also perfectly clear, but it doesn't mean he was mayor of the state. — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Come now. I hope, your 'I don't understand' is not really you disagree. Focus on what primary topic and wp:title actually say and the real factual metrics regarding significance and educational value I already provided, and not your feelings about what you speculate others may want - your speculation about others is not policy, and is certainly no basis for consensus. "Hillary Clinton was the junior senator representing New York", is perfectly clear, natural and concise (it also references the Primary Topic by real measures of significance) and familiarity is the express requirement of WP:Title because it would make no sense for an actual encyclopedia to have those unfamiliar with the topics choose titles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me if I can't follow your reasoning at all. How is any of that related in any way with leading readers to the article they want to read, which is the focus of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline? And it still doesn't explain how knowing about the city and the state makes the latter more important in terms of familiarity with the topic, when the editor is equally aware of both. Diego (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- That and the other things do make it stand out (eg. if, in fact, you wiped New York off the face of the earth, then NYC does not exist, but if you wiped the city off the face of the earth there is still New York) and familiarity with New York and/or New York City presents no cause for confusion - those who are familiar are by definition well aware. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, but then they will also be familiar with the sources for the city, so that criterion doesn't make the state stand out over the city in any way. Therefore that criterion contributes nothing towards the state being primary. Diego (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- You've made contradictory assertions, being familiar with the RS on the topic also is familiarity with the topic, and yes those familiar with the topic of New York, will know well the state. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- That makes the state important, not the most important. Can't you really see the difference? Diego (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That makes the state state primary topic by real metrics and the city secondary, the state encompasses the city. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- It does if but only if we apply some variant of the HLJC... which seems to have no significant support. Andrewa (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. All that is required is application of primary topic using real metrics to these articles, and an understanding of the facts about them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- So your position is that if you apply exactly the same real metrics to the city article, the city comes at a distant second place, because one place is physically located within the other? Diego (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- And these real metrics are ones chosen by you, which just happen to match those of the HLJC, and this understanding of the facts similarly being your opinion as to what is relevant, correct? And both of them contrary to the existing primary topic criteria, correct? How does that differ from the HLJC, except in name? Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. I have had nothing to do with that essay, it has to do with the City being currently covered in the New York topic article (the article whose page we are on) for multiple factual reasons. Wikipedia has broad overview articles and more specific article, the current New York article gives us that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was not suggesting that you were connected to that essay, just that it seems to perfectly reflect your view (you should check it out). But this suggests another way forward, see #Another way forward below. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. I have had nothing to do with that essay, it has to do with the City being currently covered in the New York topic article (the article whose page we are on) for multiple factual reasons. Wikipedia has broad overview articles and more specific article, the current New York article gives us that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. All that is required is application of primary topic using real metrics to these articles, and an understanding of the facts about them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- It does if but only if we apply some variant of the HLJC... which seems to have no significant support. Andrewa (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- That makes the state state primary topic by real metrics and the city secondary, the state encompasses the city. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- That makes the state important, not the most important. Can't you really see the difference? Diego (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the city is New York City, and is just one (albeit big) component of New York State. There's much more to the State than the City. Peter Flass (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- And there's much more to the city (specific culture, etc.) than the general characteristics of the state. All information at a New York City article is clearly not a subset of information that would be presented at a New York State article, which is what your argument seems to be implying by considering the city as a subset of the state. ~ Rob13Talk 15:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct, Rob. Thanks for batting for our team in this good-natured softball game with that comment. That's the whole point here - would the CEO of a company ever micromanage? No, he would delegate the pesky details to his subordinates. And you'll find the same relationship between the New York State and United States articles. Castncoot (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- And there's much more to the city (specific culture, etc.) than the general characteristics of the state. All information at a New York City article is clearly not a subset of information that would be presented at a New York State article, which is what your argument seems to be implying by considering the city as a subset of the state. ~ Rob13Talk 15:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. The state is not significantly more likely to be the sought topic "than all the other topics combined" (nor "much more likely" than the city), and its historic and educational relevance is comparable to that of New York City, which is also commonly referred to as "New York". Therefore it remains ambiguous what is the intended target when people link to or search for the term "New York". The opinions defending that the state is the primary topic for the term are largely a rehash of the Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion proposal, a suggested extension of WP:PTOPIC which didn't get traction. Diego (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- No city has greater global importance BlueSalix (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. As I stated in the move request, the topics are either of equal primacy, or perhaps NYC is even primary over the state. New York City is the world's number one global city, seat of the United Nations, foremost financial centre of the foremost economy in the world etc. etc. The state, on the other hand, is just a state. A big one, and an important one, but not *the* biggest or *the* most important in particular. That the city is in the state is incidental to this. The state doesn't acquire magical additional importance as an encyclopedic topic just because of that. See also Lima / Lima Province and Lagos / Lagos State for similar cases where the importance of a city supersedes or equals that of its containing province/state of the same name. — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- No The City is eponymous for the State. Not the other way around. It almost never is in cases like this. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- No – Usage of the term "New York" is divided between the state and the city; this fact is widely documented and was acknowledged by both proponents and opponents of the move request. Some editors argue that the city is primary but data does not support this view: for example, natural traffic to the city article oscillates between 13,000 and 15,000 views a day while traffic to the state article stands between 6,000 and 8,000 views a day.[7] Even taking into account that the state traffic is artificially boosted by virtue of standing at the ambiguous "New York" title and being the target of links intended for the city, we still cannot say that the city is overwhelmingly dominant in reader interest. In terms of long-term significance, neither the city nor the state can be considered dominant either, as their respective histories are closely intermixed (although the modern worldwide angle would tilt this criterion towards the city). Therefore the inescapable conclusion is that the term "New York" does not have a primary topic. According to policy, it should be a disambiguation page, but the wikipedian community might also decide that the state article should stay here per WP:IAR. That is the subject for another debate. — JFG talk 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. In my experience, the term "New York" almost invariably refers to the city, to the point that the term "New York State" is employed when writers want to refer to the state rather than the city, the only exception being when specific locales in the state are being referred to, as in, for example, "Troy, New York" or "Albany, New York". Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: I agree somewhat, but I propose a question to you. What does New York, New York ; or NY, NY refer to? Does it refer to the county in the city, i.e. Manhattan, or does it refer to the city in the state, i.e NYC? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Emir of Wikipedia, why would you refer to Manhattan, New York as New York, New York? The name of the place is Manhattan. I have always understood "New York, New York" to mean "New York City in New York State", if it's used for anything else, that is news to me. And indeed, it turns out that New York, New York redirects to New York City. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Manhattan is the County of New York. This is recognised by the New York, New York (disambiguation) page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Emir of Wikipedia, I can see that, but note that the dab page refers to this very much as a secondary meaning, the most widely understood meaning of the term "New York, New York" is New York City in New York State. Regardless, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think he's refering to the fact that "New York, NY", as a mailing address, refers only to Manhattan (that is, New York County). The other boroughs have other mailing addresses, either the borough name (i.e. "Bronx, NY") or neighborhood (i.e. "Flushing, NY"). In that regard, "New York, NY" is not a reference to the city as a whole. But unless you're sending a letter (or bill) to someone in the city, that's not a major deal. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Emir of Wikipedia, I can see that, but note that the dab page refers to this very much as a secondary meaning, the most widely understood meaning of the term "New York, New York" is New York City in New York State. Regardless, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Manhattan is the County of New York. This is recognised by the New York, New York (disambiguation) page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Emir of Wikipedia, why would you refer to Manhattan, New York as New York, New York? The name of the place is Manhattan. I have always understood "New York, New York" to mean "New York City in New York State", if it's used for anything else, that is news to me. And indeed, it turns out that New York, New York redirects to New York City. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: I agree somewhat, but I propose a question to you. What does New York, New York ; or NY, NY refer to? Does it refer to the county in the city, i.e. Manhattan, or does it refer to the city in the state, i.e NYC? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- No (neither the state nor the city is the primary topic) I prefer a disambiguation page for New York or failing that keep as it is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion about the question
Feel free to bring up longer statements about the issue at hand here.
From the !votes above: Yes New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. Interesting logic. This RfC asks a simple question, and this supposed !vote does not even try to answer it, despite the Yes it claims. It's fair enough (but wrong IMO) to claim that the question is irrelevant. But that's not what is being asked here. Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- The city article is clearly the primary topic for New York City. That fact does not disqualify the article from also being the primary topic for other titles such as Nueva York, The City So Nice They Named It Twice and possibly New York. Certes (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Certes: The fact that there are various other redirects to the city are irrelevant. There are no other articles competing for the titles you mentioned. There is {obviously} another article competing for the name New York. Pppery (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Then NYC is a better example, as it has several other meanings. But let's not get too engrossed in specific examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF. My point was that one article may be the primary topic of multiple titles. Certes (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
From the !votes above: No. For many English speakers, "New York" refers to the city. This is an entirely valid rationale, but even so I preach caution. Of course, if it's true that NYC is the primary topic (and I agree that it is) , then NYS can't be. But the question here is just whether NYS is the primary topic. If we begin to discuss in addition whether NYC is the primary topic, we open the possibility of creating a Condorcet paradox, and one of the RM panel specifically raised this possibility in their initial comments. What they did not say is that while a Condorcet is in theory unresolvable, in practice all systems do resolve it, including our own RM process and specifically the RM on which they were and are adjuducating. They have since (thankfully) stated that the possibility of a Condorcet did not influence their thinking, but in view of the circles in which the oppose vote has been allowed to lead us, I preach caution in bringing any possibility of a three-way decision into the poll above. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
From the survey above: No. NYC is the primary topic for NY. Please note the can of worms this opened. Far better to focus on the question which was asked, as I said above. Andrewa (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is a specific question of whether New York State is the primary topic, which would justify its current location if it were. Focusing on NYC vs. no primary topic at this stage is immaterial. ~ Rob13Talk 08:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is far from immaterial. It is the sort of muddy thinking that was allowed to create this mess in the first place, and is now being allowed to prolong it. It should never have been a big deal. WP:Creed#15. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
From the poll above: Recognizing that TITLE policy requires that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject, and that Primary Topic states: "[t]here is no single criterion for defining a primary topic," New York has greater population and area than any other competing topic it is thus vastly more significant in real metrics (not feeling metrics) under ptopic. New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York, and the present city was created on January 1, 1898, under the laws of New York, and its area and people are more than encompassed by New York all making it more significant in law and in fact, under ptopic. Past discussions have shown that those who think of The City are thinking of New York County (aka, Manhattan) not New York City, thus New York City is less significant in their eyes, than New York County. Compare that, like Hillary Clinton, who may be the next president of the United States, was the junior Senator of New York, not the city, the electors of New York will select the President, not the city, thus again much more significant.
This starts off with an error of fact... there's no such requirement in WP:AT. Article titles, like all of Wikipedia, belong to the whole community. We are certainly, all of us, urged to consult reliable sources, which hopefully are familiar with the subject.
But the rest is excellent! A comprehensive list of the reasons that NYS could claim to be PT, by significance, by usage and by other criteria... even the HLJC gets mentioned although not by name.
I commend it to all !voters. The question is of course, do any or all of these arguments stand up against the many arguments that NYS is not the PT?
Significant progress. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- The metrics that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC favor are those concerning what readers may be looking for and want to learn, not how big, famous or legal the topic is; WP:DISAMBIGUATION is primarily about easing navigation for our readership, not about placing topics that look "important" at prominent places. If those looking for New York may be thinking indistinctly about the state, the county, the municipality or the metropolitan area, that's actually an argument against having one of them dominate over the others.
- New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York That is hard to believe when the city came first, and the state afterwards. Diego (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. And there are equally obvious flaws in all of the arguments presented there. It speaks for itself. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- The City of today was created in 1898, under the laws of New York, and of course physical reality just means that the existence of the city is dependent on New York, whereas if the city was wiped of the face of the earth New York would still exist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- And that's typical of the gymnastics required to mount any argument at all in support of NYS as PT. Following the link above I find In 1664, unable to summon any significant resistance, Stuyvesant surrendered New Amsterdam to English troops... The English promptly renamed the fledgling city "New York" after the Duke of York... The transfer was confirmed in 1667 by the Treaty of Breda,... To me it seems a colossal stretch to say that the city was created in 1898. Not to you?
- Yes, nuke the whole of NYC to a peaceful blue glow and some of NYS might in theory survive, while if the fireball ate up the whole of NYS then of course NYC would go too. Another gymnastic.
- This drastic action is possibly being contemplated by some Wikipedians. Such a misguided and deplorable act is clearly against Official Wikipedia Policy and could easily result in a topic ban. But more important, I'm afraid it would not help much if at all. Regardless of the exact scope of destruction achieved, NYS still wouldn't have a clear claim to being the PT, as NYC would still be notable enough for an article, like Pompeii and Herculaneum. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That you think physical reality is mental gymnastics and deplorable is bizarre, that you don't like normal logic like 1 exists with 2, but 2 does not exist without 1, is to be rejected. And your history is more than partial, you use it misleadingly, as the entire province was named New York. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That you think that I think any of those things is possibly even more bizarre. Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- The State was named after the City. Not the other way around. When people all over the world hear the word "New York" the first thing they think about is not the entity of which Albany is the Capitol, but of the City! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2016
- No. When the province was named New York by England (there was already a New England to its north),there were a few Dutch settlements there, one was the City of New Netherlands, in the Dutch New Netherlands, the now English New York renamed the town its city, as it was no longer in New Netherlands, it was in New York (it also renamed Orange, Albany). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The State was named after the City. Not the other way around. When people all over the world hear the word "New York" the first thing they think about is not the entity of which Albany is the Capitol, but of the City! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2016
- In fact the more I read your reply, the less sense it makes. You say I think mental gymnastics are deplorable. They may well be, but I didn't say that. You seem to have only skimmed what I did say.
- What I said was that to nuke the whole of NYC to a peaceful blue glow (a la Fail Safe for instance) would be a misguided and deplorable act and clearly against Official Wikipedia Policy and could easily result in a topic ban. You disagree? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not my fault you write so much nonsense at length. Why let physical reality get in the way of your feelings. The fact is the City of New York would not exist without New York where it exists. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that the fact is the City of New York would not exist without New York where it exists (your emphasis removed). Not quite sure where you think I denied this. Noting that you have not replied to my previous requests for evidence, I'm guessing that you made this up too. Is that unfair?
- Agree that any nonsense I write is not your fault. I will let others judge which of us is in touch with reality rather than just feelings. It's a good question. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not my fault you write so much nonsense at length. Why let physical reality get in the way of your feelings. The fact is the City of New York would not exist without New York where it exists. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That you think that I think any of those things is possibly even more bizarre. Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- That you think physical reality is mental gymnastics and deplorable is bizarre, that you don't like normal logic like 1 exists with 2, but 2 does not exist without 1, is to be rejected. And your history is more than partial, you use it misleadingly, as the entire province was named New York. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- The City of today was created in 1898, under the laws of New York, and of course physical reality just means that the existence of the city is dependent on New York, whereas if the city was wiped of the face of the earth New York would still exist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. And there are equally obvious flaws in all of the arguments presented there. It speaks for itself. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:TITLEVAR
My attention has only just been drawn to the policy at WP:TITLEVAR. I don't know how I missed it before, I can only guess that I was too busy analysing bizarre and illogical arguments to properly check whether there were any valid ones opposing the move, and specifically, supporting the claim of NYS to be PT. In my defense, nobody else seems to have spotted this either, even the post that finally stirred the brainwaves didn't mention it explicitly. And it is kind of buried as a subsection of WP:AT#English-language titles, and none of the policies/guidelines on disambiguation link to it as far as I can see.
Is anyone, at this late date, interested in discussing this? It seems to me to be exactly what we should have been discussing all along, and might even lead to a consensus decision. Or do we just save it for 2017 or 2022?
Just in case anyone is interested, here are some issues as I see them:
- WP:TITLEVAR is about national varieties of English.
- There seems no doubt that New Yorkers (in some sense of the term, let's not go back there) tend to think of the state as primary (while most of the world allegedly thinks of the city). But is this true of all Americans, or is it a more localised thing? What does a Californian or a Dallasite tend to think?
- Even if it turns out that it's not true of all Americans, is it valid to extend the principle to smaller linguistic communities, and to this rather unique one in particular?
- Does WP:TITLEVAR apply to disambiguators, or only to base titles? (And if it applies to disambiguators, shouldn't it be at least mentioned in one of the policies/guidelines on disambiguation? Or is it and I missed that too?)
- WP:TITLEVAR reads in part Very rarely, a form that is less common locally is chosen because it is more intelligible to English-speaking readers worldwide. Might this be the appropriate action here?
I should I think disclose that I do have a qualification in language survey, a subdiscipline of sociolinguistics. (Which made the accusation a while back that I hadn't noticed how the people of Paris or Zurich spoke of their city a little bit strange... this was both of practical interest to me as a stranger to the area needing to get my bearings, and of personal curiousity.) I should perhaps have said this earlier, to explain my interest in the subpoll I attempted.
Anyway, anyone interested? Comments? Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note that Disambiguation not only applies to the current article titles, it also takes into account how people commonly call the topics of the articles even if the name is not the same as the article title. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC takes into account "the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", it doesn't concern itself with how the locals call it. In short, WP:TITLEVAR was not discussed earlier because it has little relevance to disambiguating between two articles which are commonly called with the same name.
- As long as people from around the world call the city "New York", there will be a need to apply disambiguation, whether or not that string is used as the base title of the article. Even if the city article is not called New York (city), it doesn't automatically mean that New York (state) is the primary topic for the term "New York".
- WP:TITLEVAR might be a good argument to prefer New York (state) over New York State, though the (state) parenthetical disambiguator falls under WP:Disambiguation, not WP:Article titles. Diego (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- All very good and relevant points IMO.
- I don't agree that disambiguation is not under WP:AT, of which WP:AT#Disambiguation is a section too. WP:AT is a policy, and refers to WP:Disambiguation which is an editing guideline. I can't see anywhere that suggests that WP:AT is just about base name, I think it's about article title overall. Happy to be proved wrong, and totally agree it's relevant.
- And I don't agree that there was a ever reason not to refer to WP:TITLEVAR as an important part of these discussions. I think we all either just missed it, or missed its implications. It's right on the article title policy page, and even if it's not directly applicable (about which I'm not quite sure either way right now), it has the backing of a strong consensus (and I'm guessing a longstanding one but have not checked the page and talk page history).
- Its principles should be at least considered. It may turn out that they are not entirely consistent with other policies and guidelines. They were all, after all, written by people just like us. Andrewa (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not as much that DAB is not part of TITLE, as it is that TITLEVAR is not the relevant part of the policy to apply. Unless you think that people from New York don't frequently use that name for the city, the two articles need to be disambiguated even with respect to how the locals call them. Diego (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- But if DAB is part of TITLE (your shorthand), as I believe, then this section is relevant. Agree other sections may be more relevant. That's what we should have discussed long ago IMO. Better late than never.
- Agree that disambiguation is necessary. The question is just how best do it. Andrewa (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not as much that DAB is not part of TITLE, as it is that TITLEVAR is not the relevant part of the policy to apply. Unless you think that people from New York don't frequently use that name for the city, the two articles need to be disambiguated even with respect to how the locals call them. Diego (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Its principles should be at least considered. It may turn out that they are not entirely consistent with other policies and guidelines. They were all, after all, written by people just like us. Andrewa (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Meaning, topics, facts
From #Opinions above:
- No. We are not discussing meaning, we are discussing topics, no wonder you reject facts: New York City is within New York, the City of New York is within the state, and real metrics show the state more significant in real terms than only the city -- similarly, the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma and the Republic of Ireland is in Ireland. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Don't confuse them with facts, Alanscottwalker. Castncoot (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. We are not discussing meaning, we are discussing topics, no wonder you reject facts: New York City is within New York, the City of New York is within the state, and real metrics show the state more significant in real terms than only the city -- similarly, the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma and the Republic of Ireland is in Ireland. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this is so fundamental it needs its own section. Also, it's cluttering the opinions section to the point of making it hard to see the !votes.
It's perhaps ironical to find it in that section. The matter of real metrics seems to be very much one of opinion! Yes, it is very important to distinguish fact from opinion.
But more important, note that primary meaning and primary topic both redirect to exactly the same place (that is a fact). I think this is very relevant (that is an opinion).
I'm even of the opinion that, if I ever again teach semantics, I might use We are not discussing meaning, we are discussing topics, as an example of utter nonsense. I think that even at an undergraduate level, it might well bring down the house (that is an opinion).
I don't see how you expect to discuss topics without discussing meaning. I think it's quite hilarious (that is an opinion) that you want to do so (that is a fact).
I do not dispute that the City of New York is within the state (your emphasis removed), or the Republic of Ireland is in Ireland. Those are facts (although some would have a problem with the Ireland example, I don't). There is a problem with saying New York City is within New York in that it begs the question and is arguably ambiguous, but agree that New York City is within New York State. That is a fact. And there is a problem with the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma, it's not clear to me whether that really expresses a fact either, for several reasons that we can explore if you like.
I'm skeptical that I have ever rejected those particular facts, but if so, this is a wiki (that is a fact) so there should be evidence. Can you produce any? I don't think so, but that is an opinion. But if you fail to do so, I will take that as itself evidence that you don't have any, as I think will anyone else still reading (that is an opinion).
Anyone still confused? Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just with your not accepting the fact "the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma". Oklahoma City is the subject of the first link, and it is capital of the state of Oklahoma, the subject of the second link. And, yes, Oklahoma City is always called Oklahoma City, absolutely never just Oklahoma. That's a fact. oknazevad (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I said we could explore the problems with that statement if anyone liked. Happy to do so.
- First, agree that Oklahoma City is the subject of the first link, and it is capital of the state of Oklahoma, the subject of the second link. And, yes, Oklahoma City is always called Oklahoma City, absolutely never just Oklahoma. That's a fact. (your emphasis removed) No problems anywhere with that.
- But there is a possible problem with "the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma". Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma, certainly. But we cannot from that conclude that "the topic of Oklahoma City is in the topic of Oklahoma", as you appear to have done. That's a different question, even in the case of Oklahoma City. And the difference is far more important in the case of New York City.
- When we mix terms like this, some of them conceptual and some of them physical, we invite all sorts of logical errors. Ones of exactly the sort User:Alanscottwalker makes below and above, and which so troubled Frege.
- Thank you for the invitation to explore this further. It's an important issue, and can be a tricky one. I but preach caution. Andrewa (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see how one can say that coverage of the capital and/or largest city of a state isn't part of the coverage of the state. Are there aspects of the coverage of the city that are unique within the state? Sure, that's why the city gets its own article. But everything said about the state in that article also applies to the city as well, as the city is geographically and politically a subunit of the state. Conversely, the city, has a major impact on the state as a whole because of its political significance. Now I don't agree with the idea that the state is inherently more important than the city (i.e. WP:HLJC), and this is not an argument about that, but it is impossible to completely divorce the topic of the city from the topic of the state. So yes, the topic of Oklahoma City is in the topic of Oklahoma. The state contains the city and the city has a major effect on the state. oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Very well put... mostly! I certainly didn't mean to say that coverage of the capital and/or largest city of a state isn't part of the coverage of the state. (Just for non-NY-etc-ers, note that the capital of NYS is not NYC. And just for NY-etc-ers, neither of us is saying that it is!)
- If we somehow decided that NYC was non-notable but NYS was, we would still cover NYC as a section of the NYS article. And vice versa. As Wikipedia (and most if not all other general encyclopedias) scopes articles, there is no hierarchical relationship between the two topics.
- I think that is an extremely important point. Does my (newly developed, thank you for stimulating it) understanding of it resonate? Andrewa (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say there's mo hierarchical relationship at all. Certainly, there's something to the idea that one is not inherently more primary to the other, but that doesn't mean that one isn't to some extent inherently subordinate to the other. Cities are in some ways inherently subtopics of the state (and country) where they are located. But sometimes the city has an outsize importance beyond its state/country. In short, nothing can be categorically said that one is primary over the other, hence the rejection of HLJC. But that does not mean we treat the state as a mere side topic inferior to the city.
- In short, to summarize all my positions, just to make everything clear. There is no primary topic; neither the state nor the city is the sole, dominant primary meaning of the undisambiguated term "New York". The state should be moved to "New York (state)", as the parenthetical will allow for appropriate piping of links where needed. "New York" should point to/become the title of the existing disambiguation page; the draft high-level concept article is needlessly redundant and unclear, if well meaning. People don't typically use plain "New York" to refer to the metro area as a whole, as major parts of it are not in New York (city or state) and people from those other states are not called "New Yorkers" (because they're not residents of New York). And the one position I will not bend on at all, the city should remain at "New York City"; there is absolutely no reason to move it from that very commonly used, naturally disambiguated title. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, and we have a draft at Draft:New York (overview) which was previously known as Draft:New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is precisely the overview article we don't need. Firstly, the tortured attempt to call New York a "locality" is poor; New York State is too large for such a term. Indeed, it reads like an attempt to find the right word when there is no right word because what is being described is made up. Secondly, as I've said repeatedly, the statement "New York can also refer to New York metropolitan area" is incorrect in all except an exceedingly minority usage; the very reason people refer to the metro area is to include areas quite distinct from the city but still nearby and dependent on it. Really, there's no need for anything other than the disambiguation page, and the draft, as well meaning as the editors were, should be abandoned. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- So what do you propose? That New York redirects to the disambiguation page? I think that would clearly violate Wikipedia conventions and consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, but surely it would be an improvement? Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- In what way does having an ambiguous title point to a disambiguation page violate Wikipedia guidelines? That makes no sense to me whatsoever, truly. There is nothing wrong with stating flatly that "New York" is ambiguous and has no single primary meaning. Certainly it is clear that we cannot agree on a primary meaning, and that the statistics (presented by User:BD2412 elsewhere on this page) back up that the city and state are both fairly comparable in number of links. Its an ambiguous term, there's no two ways about it. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think the problem is WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page... (my emphasis) This is repeated in other guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- In what way does having an ambiguous title point to a disambiguation page violate Wikipedia guidelines? That makes no sense to me whatsoever, truly. There is nothing wrong with stating flatly that "New York" is ambiguous and has no single primary meaning. Certainly it is clear that we cannot agree on a primary meaning, and that the statistics (presented by User:BD2412 elsewhere on this page) back up that the city and state are both fairly comparable in number of links. Its an ambiguous term, there's no two ways about it. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, but surely it would be an improvement? Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I really don't see what harm the overview article would do. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- So what do you propose? That New York redirects to the disambiguation page? I think that would clearly violate Wikipedia conventions and consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is precisely the overview article we don't need. Firstly, the tortured attempt to call New York a "locality" is poor; New York State is too large for such a term. Indeed, it reads like an attempt to find the right word when there is no right word because what is being described is made up. Secondly, as I've said repeatedly, the statement "New York can also refer to New York metropolitan area" is incorrect in all except an exceedingly minority usage; the very reason people refer to the metro area is to include areas quite distinct from the city but still nearby and dependent on it. Really, there's no need for anything other than the disambiguation page, and the draft, as well meaning as the editors were, should be abandoned. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with most of this, and have no strong objection to any of it. But the main issue always was and still is, should the NYS article be at the base name? And I still can't see any problem to assessing a strong consensus that it should not be. What am I missing?
- The result of failing to focus on this is that a situation continues to exist that is quite frankly ridiculous to the rest of the world. It would be good to fix it! Andrewa (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's for the closers of the RM to decide. We already had the discussion and put it in their hands, by consensus. And while it may seem ridiculous to you, it's always a bad idea to try to speak for others. So while this discussion has been interesting, it may very well be time for all of us to WP:DROPTHESTICK and let it go for now. Again, as I've said before, there is WP:NODEADLINE, and no one is suffering real harm from this while we wait for the close. Wikipedia is just an on-line encyclopedia, it is not life or death. Some perspective is needed here. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree on perspective etc.. But I stand by my opinion on how this looks to the rest of the world! And remembering that not only the misnamed article, but also the naming conventions which we are patently ignoring, and this discussion, is freely available on the web, long-term in the case of the talk pages and page histories... It's a bit frightening. But the world and Wikipedia will both survive. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's for the closers of the RM to decide. We already had the discussion and put it in their hands, by consensus. And while it may seem ridiculous to you, it's always a bad idea to try to speak for others. So while this discussion has been interesting, it may very well be time for all of us to WP:DROPTHESTICK and let it go for now. Again, as I've said before, there is WP:NODEADLINE, and no one is suffering real harm from this while we wait for the close. Wikipedia is just an on-line encyclopedia, it is not life or death. Some perspective is needed here. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, and we have a draft at Draft:New York (overview) which was previously known as Draft:New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see how one can say that coverage of the capital and/or largest city of a state isn't part of the coverage of the state. Are there aspects of the coverage of the city that are unique within the state? Sure, that's why the city gets its own article. But everything said about the state in that article also applies to the city as well, as the city is geographically and politically a subunit of the state. Conversely, the city, has a major impact on the state as a whole because of its political significance. Now I don't agree with the idea that the state is inherently more important than the city (i.e. WP:HLJC), and this is not an argument about that, but it is impossible to completely divorce the topic of the city from the topic of the state. So yes, the topic of Oklahoma City is in the topic of Oklahoma. The state contains the city and the city has a major effect on the state. oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are quite confused. It's as if you do not know where you are, see, WP:NOTDICT. You may want to go to Wikitionary. As an encyclopedia, we are not a dictionary explicating meaning, we are exploring topics encyclopedically. The article which talk page you are on, our encyclopedic topic of New York, discusses New York City at length, as well as other things, because that is how one writes an encyclopedia article on New York, which arises from the fact that the City of New York is within the state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you found my link to Wiktionary unhelpful, but I think you are a mite confused yourself. Wikipedia articles and other pages frequently link to Wiktionary, that's what the Wikt shortcut is for. Do all the other writers who do this not know where they are too? It should not be a problem.
- Agree that As an encyclopedia, we are not a dictionary explicating meaning, we are exploring topics encyclopedically. Exactly!
- ... The article which talk page you are on, our encyclopedic topic of New York, discusses New York City at length, as well as other things... Sort of. I'd say The article on whose talk page you are, on our encyclopedic topic of New York, describes New York City at length,..., but I think that's exactly what you mean. Is it?
- ...because that is how one writes an encyclopedia article on New York, which arises from the fact that the City of New York is within the state. (your emphasis removed and mine added) No. The article topics are not as simply related as you (and the HLJC again) would have us believe. Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The topics are not simply related, the relationship in fact is patent. But perhaps you know nothing of the topics. (As for your link to wikitionary, it just was irrelevant not confusing but if you want to write a dictionary go to wikitionary, and leave construction of more complex context to others.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another hint that the State is the primary topic, although, again, one should not place WP:UNDUE weight on this issue: Look at New York, New York City, Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Texas, Houston, Berlin (the latter both a city and a state), or in fact almost any other state or major city article - Geography is consistently listed as a higher-precedence topic compared to Demographics. This suggests that the natural human thought flow of importance, precedence, priority – whatever term you want to use for this metric – puts the physical lansdscape – which includes both rural and urban landscapes – ahead of the "human impact" element of those landscapes. Therein, HLJR intuitively vibes consistently with our natural neurobiological rhythms, i.e., given that the State completely contains the City. Castncoot (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the History section precedes all by default, because one obviously must describe how and when a particular geographic entity was formed in the first place before proceeding any further. And even in this History section, the State article will describe some aspect(s) of the City's history, but not vice versa. Castncoot (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting and relevant points. Thank you! Not convinced that they stand up against the usage and significance criteria, but... as with the HLJC... it's reasonable to argue that in this case they should. Or even that they should be incorporated into WP:PT. But I don't think we'll get consensus for either that or their application to this case. I could be wrong! Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- And again I must point out, User:Alanscottwalker, that just because I linked to a dictionary doesn't mean I'm writing one. Wikipedians do it often, and I'm afraid I've done it again below. I find it helpful sometimes. Not you?
- But more important, please criticise my arguments rather than attacking my right to make them. I'm surprised you (and others) are getting away with as much of this as you are, but it may not last forever. Suggest you (re?)read WP:NPA.
- Disagree that the relationship is wikt:patent. And I'm not linking to annoy you. I'm fascinated to know just which meaning of patent you intended! None of them seem applicable to me, as I would have thought the discussion to date makes (;-> patent. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- PS you might like to join in the discussion that I and Oknazevad are having above, which is exploring exactly this relationship. Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That a thing is the sum of its parts is patent. Factually so, here. (BTW. I point out again your linking was irrelevant to any point I made, so link away.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree. That a thing is the sum of its parts is, in general, false. But it does depend on what you mean by sum. Try this experiment: Go to a wrecking yard and attempt to drive a disassembled car. Report back with your results. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry you can't see the connection, but perhaps others will, and glad to now have your permission to link to wikt. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Easy, put it in a truck and drive the whole sum of a disassembled car away. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- That a thing is the sum of its parts is patent. Factually so, here. (BTW. I point out again your linking was irrelevant to any point I made, so link away.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another hint that the State is the primary topic, although, again, one should not place WP:UNDUE weight on this issue: Look at New York, New York City, Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Texas, Houston, Berlin (the latter both a city and a state), or in fact almost any other state or major city article - Geography is consistently listed as a higher-precedence topic compared to Demographics. This suggests that the natural human thought flow of importance, precedence, priority – whatever term you want to use for this metric – puts the physical lansdscape – which includes both rural and urban landscapes – ahead of the "human impact" element of those landscapes. Therein, HLJR intuitively vibes consistently with our natural neurobiological rhythms, i.e., given that the State completely contains the City. Castncoot (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The topics are not simply related, the relationship in fact is patent. But perhaps you know nothing of the topics. (As for your link to wikitionary, it just was irrelevant not confusing but if you want to write a dictionary go to wikitionary, and leave construction of more complex context to others.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- So now let's analyze only the technical metrics (i.e., Wikipedia-based) involving criteria to determine primary topic, rather than looking at subjective, culturally iconic metrics such as "fame" (which would be reflected in the technical metric of usage anyway); with the caveat that primary topic in turn represents but one criterion towards developing a consensus about moving, for which no consensus has ever been reached in this article title's roughly 14- or 15-year history. Perhaps here's why move supporters have never been able to successfully leverage their sole attempted argument successfully:
Technical, i.e. Wikipedia-based, criteria(ion) supporting NYState as Primary Topic | Technical, i.e. Wikipedia-based, criteria(ion) supporting NYCity as Primary Topic |
---|---|
New York forks off NYC in section, via Regions of New York, but not vice versa |
Usage (in pageview statistics and disambiguated links pointing to entity) |
WikiProject New York > WikiProject NYC, via List of cities in New York | |
History section in New York incorporates NYC history, but not vice versa | |
Geography section supersedes Demographics section (in virtually all geographic articles in Wikipedia) | |
+/- HLJC - still at essay status but now acknowledged by move-support side to be legitimately usable toward building consensus |
Castncoot (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Therefore, even though on the surface, on a purely quantitative basis, NYC has a 2: or 3: to 1 ratio per the usage metric, if one scratches beneath that superficial surface, one finds that on a qualitative basis, the State has more compelling evidence, again by purely encyclopedically driven, Wikipedia-based technical metrics, to be awarded primary topic status. Again, the caveat being that the move-oppose side isn't even looking at primary topic as the sine qua non criterion against moving. Castncoot (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Apart from the uncalled for slur against those who disagree with you, I think this is an excellent contribution. Not the whole story, but a good start.
- The main problem is, such a table doesn't belong on a talk page. Signing edits to it will be problematical, even for yourself. Suggest create either a project page or user page to develop it, and then copy it across. Andrewa (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Slur?? No idea what you're talking about. And move the table? No, that's ridiculous. That happened to be my comment, and it was the only way I could express it, just like someone has posted a diagram of Los Angeles below. I have no intention of editing it, and nobody else has the right to edit it, either. Castncoot (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- In that case I don't think it likely that it will achieve anything... a pity. Agree that they should not edit your comment, that was my point. But also bear in mind that all pages and all edits belong to the project and are released under our copyleft licence. So if someone wants to copy your table and complete or otherwise improve it, you have already given permission for that. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Slur?? No idea what you're talking about. And move the table? No, that's ridiculous. That happened to be my comment, and it was the only way I could express it, just like someone has posted a diagram of Los Angeles below. I have no intention of editing it, and nobody else has the right to edit it, either. Castncoot (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Therefore, even though on the surface, on a purely quantitative basis, NYC has a 2: or 3: to 1 ratio per the usage metric, if one scratches beneath that superficial surface, one finds that on a qualitative basis, the State has more compelling evidence, again by purely encyclopedically driven, Wikipedia-based technical metrics, to be awarded primary topic status. Again, the caveat being that the move-oppose side isn't even looking at primary topic as the sine qua non criterion against moving. Castncoot (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance of Geography superseding Demographics. The other entries on the left of the table rephrase the single argument that NYS is bigger than and includes NYC. Size does not equate to importance. This debate contains plenty of counter-examples where a search term correctly takes the reader to the smaller entity or to a disambiguation page. Certes (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Importance" is not a concept in policy (too squishy, perhaps). I am not sure what is meant by that entry in the table (perhaps it can be clarified by the author?) because there are vastly more demographics which favor the wider and broader topic of New York than only the City in significant numbers, geography, history, etc. too. And significantly more information value in the wider topic article, with an overview of essential information on New York City, too. As someone wrote below, a significant number of articles mention the wider topic in politics, history, roads, geographic features, multiple cities, and places, people, etc. Moreover, there are counter examples to the ones you have mentioned, which are mentioned in this debate, and Wikipedia, virtually always uses the common name for the state (except in two outliers, which have vastly different facts). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- What I meant, Alanscottwalker is that the State contains 50,000 square miles of settlements (including NYC and its people!) and roads, mountains and waterfalls, lakes and rivers, and forests and farms, all of which are WP:NOTABLE. NYC contains its 469 square miles. Geography covers both landscape and human impact. Demographics covers only human impact, a situation which could prompt delving into more subjective ("squishy," as you put it) metrics such as "fame", "importance", and "iconic value" if Demographics routinely superseded Geography (which you'll almost never see on Wikipedia, probably because that would defy the flow of naturally occurring human thought process); if that were the case (which it is not), one might make an argument that NYC could in fact be the primary topic. Castncoot (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I am just thinking of demographics in terms of population and many of their individual characteristics and the New York article covers it quantitatively and qualitatively - all the people of New York - a life is a significant life, human geography if you will. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- What I meant, Alanscottwalker is that the State contains 50,000 square miles of settlements (including NYC and its people!) and roads, mountains and waterfalls, lakes and rivers, and forests and farms, all of which are WP:NOTABLE. NYC contains its 469 square miles. Geography covers both landscape and human impact. Demographics covers only human impact, a situation which could prompt delving into more subjective ("squishy," as you put it) metrics such as "fame", "importance", and "iconic value" if Demographics routinely superseded Geography (which you'll almost never see on Wikipedia, probably because that would defy the flow of naturally occurring human thought process); if that were the case (which it is not), one might make an argument that NYC could in fact be the primary topic. Castncoot (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Importance" is not a concept in policy (too squishy, perhaps). I am not sure what is meant by that entry in the table (perhaps it can be clarified by the author?) because there are vastly more demographics which favor the wider and broader topic of New York than only the City in significant numbers, geography, history, etc. too. And significantly more information value in the wider topic article, with an overview of essential information on New York City, too. As someone wrote below, a significant number of articles mention the wider topic in politics, history, roads, geographic features, multiple cities, and places, people, etc. Moreover, there are counter examples to the ones you have mentioned, which are mentioned in this debate, and Wikipedia, virtually always uses the common name for the state (except in two outliers, which have vastly different facts). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Procedural comments
Any comments about the process should go here.
- I'm not even going to !vote here, and anyway I've already answered this during the move request discussion, as any interested editor could have. This RfC was started in bad faith strictly to subvert the process of the move request adjudication, amidst this process, and directly in violation of the spirit and perhaps letter of what admin panelist Newyorkbrad has recommended and/or instructed, simply to get around a likely moratorium on this topic. This RfC should be withdrawn immediately, as the time for this would have been while the move request discussion was ongoing. Please withdraw this RfC. Castncoot (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Castncoot, would you agree to participate in a dispute resolution process? Your continuous calls to stifle any kind of discussion and repeated accusations of bad faith are starting to become seen as very bad form. If you don't agree to this RfC, there must be some way that you find acceptable to discuss other people's concerns, so that we can settle the question. Diego (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. And the direct answer to this is simple. As I've already pointed out, this was already discussed extensively during the move request discussion process. You and others had all the time in the world to malleate the topic of primary topic in any which way you wanted, as you are directly tying this to the move request, while the oppose side argued that it was not the determinant factor anyway. You don't get a second bite at the apple when things aren't going your way. The move request discussion is now closed, and the panel will decide how much weight, if any, this (and any other move request-related topic either favoring or disfavoring a move, by the way) will have in coming up with a composite decision. And then all of these topics will need to be subjected to a common moratorium along with any subsequent move discussion itself. Would you simply wipe up an oil spill, or would you also plug up holes from the oil tanker? Castncoot (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Castncoot, would you agree to participate in a dispute resolution process? Your continuous calls to stifle any kind of discussion and repeated accusations of bad faith are starting to become seen as very bad form. If you don't agree to this RfC, there must be some way that you find acceptable to discuss other people's concerns, so that we can settle the question. Diego (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It is sad and surprising that we are even discussing this while the RM is in process, but reasonable in the circumstances. I stated early in the process of the current RM that NYS fails both PT criteria and there has subsequently been no serious, evidence or policy-based attempt to dispute this.
However we are now in the position that one of the panel of three has expressed the opinion that there is consensus that NYS is not the PT, but the other two seem to see no consensus on this. Worse, their statements are unclear even on whether this consensus exists. These are simple and relevant questions, surely?
And against this background, User:Castncoot is vigorously proposing that all discussion relevant to this question should be banned for a period of three and preferably six years. I have consistently supported a moratorium that is well scoped and of reasonable length, and I have yet to hear any opposition to it. But his proposal is neither.
So the neatest thing now is to have this particular discussion immediately (and, in hindsight, belatedly). It would have been far better to have this RfC before the latest RM, but that was not the decision of the latest MR.
It is a simple, relevant and timely question, and there is no good reason that it should not or cannot be quickly resolved. Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, enough already, and very improper, so I'll abstain a vote. The question is loaded as well. If you want to be neutral, you'd ask "what is the primary topic?" instead of asking if it's New York state or not. Reminds me of a comment on the RM about such loaded statements and their negative consequences likely in this case. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, very improper and shameful because it is NOT timely, regardless of the way the question could be phrased. This conversation should and could have been formed only by Newyorkbrad or perhaps BD2412, both of whom had clearly indicated in somewhat different ways that the time for further comment on the substance of the move request discussion or its potential justifications had expired; and in my opinion, this is anarchy. I can think of other RfC questions here that would skew to disfavor a move, but I am holding back. I also abstain from a vote on this question for this very reason; people know what I have stated in the move request discussion, as they know what others have already stated as well. Therefore, this particular discussion is rendered moot. Castncoot (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I also tend to agree that it is inappropriate to begin a new discussion at this time. It feels like rushing to get something new underway before the closing panel has the chance to speak on a moratorium, which has been proposed by a number of participants. I have been through this mill before. I proposed to move "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton", the proposal failed, and rather than trying to restart the discussion in a different venue, I respected the moratorium and spent that period gathering a substantial body of evidence - thousands of examples - demonstrating the primary topic title. The next move request succeeded. bd2412 T 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- This can't be called "rushing" as the discussion was closed for over a month now and the panelists have not come to a common conclusion yet. I started this RFC to help settle a key question about which editors on both sides and one panelist have publicly requested clarification, so I feel legitimate to take the pulse of the community on this narrowly-formulated finding of fact. There is no prejudice in my question about the eventual page move; the community could very well decide that other arguments than WP:PTOPIC should prevail in this particular case. But at least it will be a fully-informed decision. — JFG talk 03:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BD2412: This isn't a move request, though; it's the gathering of evidence that the community considers NYS not to be primary topic. The closers have had plenty of chance to comment. They've chosen not to do so on this subject, so we're moving on. ~ Rob13Talk 03:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see no new information or evidence being presented here, so who will be fully-informed of what? Of the fact that a bunch of RFC respondents either have a gut feeling on this, or agree with the evidence presented in the apparently unsuccessful move request? What is the point of having a new discussion if no new support is provided? bd2412 T 03:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural rules must be respected. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a banana republic version of medium, rather than an encyclopedia. For that procedural reason alone, that this RfC was started amidst a move closure adjudication process, after the discussion period allowing all arguments to be made had expired – aside from the fact that Wikiproject NYC corresponds to New York City and is additionally subordinate, as one of the List of cities in New York, to Wikiproject New York, which corresponds to New York State as the Primary Topic, trumping all other PTOPIC arguments from the beginning of time – this page's discussion is rendered moot. Castncoot (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- BD2412, if new evidence is to be presented, this is the time and place to do so. The whole point of a new RfC is to elaborate on the points that many of us felt were unclear with respect to the issue of the primary topic, and that includes delving into the amount of evidence available - you can bring new evidence or request it if you think it's important. Diego (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see no new information or evidence being presented here, so who will be fully-informed of what? Of the fact that a bunch of RFC respondents either have a gut feeling on this, or agree with the evidence presented in the apparently unsuccessful move request? What is the point of having a new discussion if no new support is provided? bd2412 T 03:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
What is new is the format of the question, which has at least some chance of improving on the latest RM. The purpose of all talk pages, it should be remembered, is to build consensus. For whatever reason, the latest RM has failed to achieve consensus on anything, or so it seems.
So it is valid to look for other ways to build consensus. Many, myself included, feel that the topic of this RfC is a key issue, and that consensus can be achieved on it, or even could already be assessed to exist. Others feel that it is irrelevant, and/or deny forcefully that this consensus exists, and frankly appear determined to prevent any consensus from being achieved..
It would be good to achieve a clear consensus on something, surely? Andrewa (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. @BD2412: You and the closers have alluded to the fact that the primary topic issue, which is usually decided at an RM, cannot be decided at this particular RM because of the way the question was posed as Move or Not Move. This has been provided as a rationale for punting on the issue, but obviously this issue is key to strength of arguments; if there's community consensus that New York State is not the primary topic, then the "move" arguments become much stronger. Since the closers have indicated they do not appear inclined to address the primary topic issue at the RM, then this is not a rehashing of another discussion; it's an attempt to find a broader community consensus on a specific question that would be relevant to future move requests and which has apparently not been adequately explored at the RM. This is again a case where we can't have it both ways. Either the primary topic bit can be assessed at the RM and must be taken into account when weighing the arguments or it cannot be assessed at the RM and therefore can and should be decided at this RfC. It's beyond frustrating that editors are trying to lock us in some type of bureaucratic legal hell whereby they claim we've never argued primary topic properly, but we're forbidden from doing so via some type of non-existent moratorium that's part of a close that's been pending for over a month. (Castncoot, in particular, is arguing in one place that primary topic is "moot" and shouldn't be considered for the move (last hit of "moot" if you ctrl+F at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request) while arguing vigorously here that we can't discuss primary topic because it's heavily tied to the recent move request. I do not drop WP:AGF lightly, but there comes a time when my patience is exhausted. It's extremely facetious to adopt two wholly contradictory arguments when each happens to be convenient for your position.) ~ Rob13Talk 08:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Rob, please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what I say. Your side is specifically linking primary topic heavily to the move request. Not the oppose side, who believes not to give primary topic WP:UNDUE weight. We can't do your "work" for you, that's not our responsibility. So if you had wanted to make your case about Primary Topic, you had every opportunity to do so the during the move request discussion. And you all did, collectively. Look at the number one argument listed for the support side at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request! The closers took that and everything else into account when they made their decision. Therefore, the discussion on this page represents a brazen attempt at a second bite at the apple after the discussion has already been closed and represents obstructive interference with the process of adjudication that is already cooking; its worth to anything official in Wikipedia is therefore null and void. This RfC as such is moot to any move request discussion, has no constructive value at this point, should be subjected to a moratorium of a yet undetermined amount of time along with any future move request discussion, and should be hatted off immediately. And people, please for goodness sakes allow the panel to come up with a joint decision; Newyorkbrad has already hinted that he will not let this drag on forever. Castncoot (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've asked the other panelists to add anything they wish to. I can't compel them to do so, and one of them seems to be on a wikibreak. My own take is that (1) there is no consensus for a move, (2) people on both sides are becoming unhelpfully obsessed about this entire issue, and (3) if is it up to me, people would focus on other things before renewing discussion of any aspect of this issue for a minimum of several months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad, there are aspects of this issue that shouldn't wait for a several-months-long moratorium. This is a time-sensitive issue: every week bad links are created that describe the city but point readers to the state article. No one in the discussion denied that this is happening, but the opposers to the move for the most part conveniently ignored the calls to find a solution to this problem, whether it involved moving the article or not.
- The backlog of incoming links to review was alleviated somewhat by the adaptation of bots to fix the trivial cases, but many new wrong links will be created in that time that still will require human supervision. (I tried to lend a hand in the disambiguation task, but I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of this topic to know how to be sure that I would fix most of the problematic links correctly). Every day that we can advance in the task to find a long-term consensus is a step toward solving this problem that affects readers, not just editors. A ban on discussing any aspect, even if it is not a direct request to change the title, would only make the problem worse. Diego (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Diego, to narrowly address what you just rehashed from the move request discussion, the City is part of the State. Therefore, many or most of these are neither technically incorrect nor "bad" links. The ones that are strictly incorrect because the City was specifically searched should be fixed individually by our universal community of editors at the time they get the error, just like with any other error in the text. A drastic response such as a move is certainly not the fix for that. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, and don't use a bulldozer when you simply need a sleek hammer. But most importantly, please follow the rules of Wikipedia, i.e., content arguments need to be off-limits at this point. Castncoot (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- A possible increase in the number of incoming links is a non-issue. There are already over 75,000 links to this page (I have clarified several thousand incoming links to point to the city over the time since the last discussion was active); the number of new links that will be created in the next six months pointing to this article but specifically intending the city will be a trivial portion of an already gargantuan number. bd2412 T 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've asked the other panelists to add anything they wish to. I can't compel them to do so, and one of them seems to be on a wikibreak. My own take is that (1) there is no consensus for a move, (2) people on both sides are becoming unhelpfully obsessed about this entire issue, and (3) if is it up to me, people would focus on other things before renewing discussion of any aspect of this issue for a minimum of several months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Rob, please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what I say. Your side is specifically linking primary topic heavily to the move request. Not the oppose side, who believes not to give primary topic WP:UNDUE weight. We can't do your "work" for you, that's not our responsibility. So if you had wanted to make your case about Primary Topic, you had every opportunity to do so the during the move request discussion. And you all did, collectively. Look at the number one argument listed for the support side at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request! The closers took that and everything else into account when they made their decision. Therefore, the discussion on this page represents a brazen attempt at a second bite at the apple after the discussion has already been closed and represents obstructive interference with the process of adjudication that is already cooking; its worth to anything official in Wikipedia is therefore null and void. This RfC as such is moot to any move request discussion, has no constructive value at this point, should be subjected to a moratorium of a yet undetermined amount of time along with any future move request discussion, and should be hatted off immediately. And people, please for goodness sakes allow the panel to come up with a joint decision; Newyorkbrad has already hinted that he will not let this drag on forever. Castncoot (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Procedural comments refocus
Agree that several comments above are rehashing the move discussion. Please focus. The aim of this RfC is to
build consensus on whether or not New York State is the primary topic of the article title "New York"
and any distraction from that, however well intended, is counterproductive to the goals of building consensus and improving Wikipedia.
The discussion is timely because there is a strong desire (and in my view a real possibility of consensus) for a moratorium, but much discussion as to its scope and duration. We need to build consensus on the scope and timing, and many (myself included) feel it is unreasonable for the moratorium to include any issue if a decision on it has been excluded from the closure (for whatever reason). There seems grudging consensus that PT is a key issue, although some participants have not been consistent in their position on this, some even arguing that it is not a key issue but at the same time seeing it as important to discourage building consensus on it, whether as part of the RM or apart from it.
I do not wish to put pressure on the panel to include a further statement on primary topic, just the opposite. I am obviously disappointed that two of them do not wish to, but it is their call. This RfC frees them from this pressure, in that once it is resolved, that then removes the main point of contention as to whether a moratorium should extend to PT discussions.
At the risk of putting words into their mouths, there appears to be a majority decision that PT is not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not to move. I respect that decision and recommend a reasonable moratorium to follow it. We must move on. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is (in my view, subject to any further input from the other panelists) no consensus to move the article even assuming that New York State is not the primary topic. Of those opposing a move, a few commenters felt that New York State was the primary topic, while others felt either explicitly or implicitly that other considerations warranted no-move irrespective of whether or not it was the primary topic. If you accept that there should be no immediate renewal of the move-or-don't-move discussion, I don't see what purpose would be served by discussing the question of primary topic in the abstract, since the only relevance of determining whether the state is the primary topic would be for the purpose of using this fact as an argument for the contested pagemove—outside that context, unless I am missing something, it's just an academic exercise. I very sincerely wish that editors would focus for awhile on some of the 5+ million other pages of the encyclopedia for awhile rather than the name of this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, that seems to confirm my understanding of your position. Exactly!
- I think we will need to disagree on whether this discussion is timely. I have given my reasons for thinking it is both timely and constructive (although please note I did not initiate it). It is not an academic exercise but an important part of working towards consensus on a moratorium.
- Yes, I am on record as saying that there should be no MR, and a moratorium of at least six months and preferably twelve on any new RM. I have not changed that opinion, and seek now to build consensus supporting it. Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- What would the purpose of the discussion you are proposing be? I'm not being argumentative, at least not deliberately so—I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I am on record as saying that there should be no MR, and a moratorium of at least six months and preferably twelve on any new RM. I have not changed that opinion, and seek now to build consensus supporting it. Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming you mean the current discussion on whether NYS is PT, my purpose in participating is to work towards consensus on a moratorium, so we can all have a break from this and get back to all those other articles as you suggested.
- (Of course I'm not proposing that discussion, I'm participating in one that has already been started by others. So is it really the one you mean? I haven't intentionally proposed any other recently!)
- There are two ways forward that I can see if we are to build consensus on the moratorium. One is to explicitly allow further discussion of PT during the moratorium. The other is to answer the question now. I'm of the opinion that we can answer the question quite easily and rapidly, provided we stay focused on building consensus on the question as asked. So it's the obvious way to go.
- I could be wrong. But the poll to date seems already conclusive. The only rationale yet provided supporting a Yes is New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. That rationale is so full of holes that words fail me, but I think its various flaws have all been identified above.
- So here is a suggestion right out of the blue... why don't either you or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise close this RfC as Strong consensus that New York State is not the primary topic?
- I don't think that would be at all improper. Probably User:Niceguyedc should not do it, nor should you close it if the verdict were otherwise. Any of those might be challenged, and we can do without that!
- As far as I can see, the question of what the primary topic of "New York" is has meaning only in the context of a move discussion, so I still really don't understand the concept of discussing what the primary topic is while purporting not to discuss whether or not to move the page.
- As I've previously said several times, I am not prepared to say that there is a consensus that the State is not the primary topic, in part because many participants in the discussion did not believe that was the most important factor to focus on and did not address the issue one way or the other. I have also said that even if it were decided that the State is not the primary topic, this would not resolve whether there is a primary topic, nor would it resolve whether the page should be moved (I think you agree with me on at least the last point).
- If the move discussion is closed as no consensus, I will suggest holding off on any further discussion of moving this article and all related issues for either six months or a year. I would consider discussing whether New York State is the primary topic, as well as whether the article should be redirected (as someone has raised on my talkpage), to fall within the scope of the issues that should be held in abeyance during that time, unless someone such as yourself is able to explain what value discussing such collateral issues would have, other than as prelude to the next move discussion.
- Can people on this page please find something else to talk about? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. If you are not prepared to say that there is a consensus that the State is not the primary topic, then of course you can't take my suggestion. I am surprised at the reason you give, but not really at the result. My suggestion was a bit out of left field I admit!
- If we do have a moratorium as broad as you propose, then may I suggest a longer moratorium on RMs? Perhaps a year specifically on RMs, but just six months on related discussions?
- That way we will hopefully avoid the situation we now seem to have, that had the RfC been raised before the RM, you would then have been able to assess a consensus on the RfC, and even that the RM might then have succeeded. (We will never know of course.) Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for banging on about this, but it would help us find something else to talk about if there was a single unified result for the RM, that we could all hang our hats on and say that's the outcome. If it's no consensus, that's absolutely fine, but there should be one rationale agreed by the panel, and signed off by all three of them. I may be wrong, but it seems like the continuing discussion stems largely from the inconclusive end to the RM and the fact that I at least don't even fully understand why there was no consensus seen by the panel. — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's pretty straightforward, Amakuru - there's no agreement. No agreement ---> no consensus. You can go back and reinvent that wheel before returning to "New York" if you'd like, of course. As far as the length of the moratorium goes, we really should have a !vote and take the median - it would be unfair for one side alone to determine this. Castncoot (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and although your position is well known to me, and no doubt you're happy enough with an ending that has no agreement whatsoever, but you'll forgive me for feeling like there has been an inconclusive ending here. "No consensus" can apply to the debate as a whole, but the point of a panel is that it comes to a definitive consensus amongst its three members. Anything else is a hung jury. That's what happened at Hillary Clinton, and it hasn't yet happened here. Just to be clear, I don't object if the result is "no consensus", but I want there to be a result. — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- As I read the various policies and guidelines, a no consensus close is a decision that no consensus is possible, not just that it has not yet been achieved.
- I appreciate and share the desires of many to give this a break. It has not been a pleasant experience! But we should first explore all possibilities of consensus, and should commend those who are doing some lateral thinking to seek it, and are prepared to spend time on this.
- On the other hand, I again ask that we all work to build consensus. All of us. It may be that a no consensus decision is the result, but to actively work towards such a result is a breach of behavioural guidelines, and may be sanctioned in various ways. Andrewa (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and although your position is well known to me, and no doubt you're happy enough with an ending that has no agreement whatsoever, but you'll forgive me for feeling like there has been an inconclusive ending here. "No consensus" can apply to the debate as a whole, but the point of a panel is that it comes to a definitive consensus amongst its three members. Anything else is a hung jury. That's what happened at Hillary Clinton, and it hasn't yet happened here. Just to be clear, I don't object if the result is "no consensus", but I want there to be a result. — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's pretty straightforward, Amakuru - there's no agreement. No agreement ---> no consensus. You can go back and reinvent that wheel before returning to "New York" if you'd like, of course. As far as the length of the moratorium goes, we really should have a !vote and take the median - it would be unfair for one side alone to determine this. Castncoot (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have added comments from below which may have been missed, upon the advice of Castncoot. Please read it before you make a judgement. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for banging on about this, but it would help us find something else to talk about if there was a single unified result for the RM, that we could all hang our hats on and say that's the outcome. If it's no consensus, that's absolutely fine, but there should be one rationale agreed by the panel, and signed off by all three of them. I may be wrong, but it seems like the continuing discussion stems largely from the inconclusive end to the RM and the fact that I at least don't even fully understand why there was no consensus seen by the panel. — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Arriving a bit late at this section, but it occurred to me the following regarding why this RfC is important, regardless of its possible influence on a move: we are trying to clarify the reasons why the state has been located at this prominent place. Recent comments in the Opinions and "about the question" sections have been shedding light on why some people think this status quo is a fair situation, which frankly is something that was quite unclear from the RM discussion. Diego (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm very late to this, but of course New York State is the primary topic for "New York." No one qualifies state names, as, e.g. "California (state)" or "Alabama (state)", but city names are usually qualified for example "Frankfurt (Oder)", although "New York, New York" might be overkill. Why not qualify the city "New York (city)"? Has anyone counted the relative number of articles? Peter Flass (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Peter Flass, have a look at Washington (state) and Georgia (U.S. state). And you might consider adding this !vote to #Opinions above. TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Peter is right. The common name convention for US states is virtually universal, and the two you bring up are not on point. In the history of Wikipedia, the common convention has never been departed from, except in 2 out of 50 where there was an entity unconnected or not encompassed by the state, and that circumstance is not relevant here. Ireland and ROI are similar precedent to NY and NYC. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Peter stated No one qualifies state names, as, e.g. "California (state)" or "Alabama (state)". Despite there being two examples where we do exactly that, you now claim Peter is right, on the basis that those two are somehow irrelevant. No, they show that Peter was wrong.
- Given that there are two exceptions, why should there not be a third? You say, rightly, that the particular circumstances of the first two are different to this one. True. So we need to examine the circumstances of this third one. And if we find that they also justify an exception to this common (but not universal) convention, as I think we do, then we make it. Is that so hard? Andrewa (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Peter is right. The common name convention for US states is virtually universal, and the two you bring up are not on point. In the history of Wikipedia, the common convention has never been departed from, except in 2 out of 50 where there was an entity unconnected or not encompassed by the state, and that circumstance is not relevant here. Ireland and ROI are similar precedent to NY and NYC. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Peter Flass, have a look at Washington (state) and Georgia (U.S. state). And you might consider adding this !vote to #Opinions above. TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Side stepping the naming question
As the naming issue doesn't seem to be able to reach a consensus how about looking at an alternate approaches? I know a broad concept article on the combined geographical regions of both the state and the city had been suggested where I suggested this already, but as I commented there, I think the article on the state itself can fulfill this role. Given that the city is the most notable city in the state a section of this article to the city seems reasonable. Yes it is mentioned through out the article but it would allow both the city and the state to be covered at the "New York" title with a {{Main}}
link to the city's article. PaleAqua (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- This actually sounds like a bright idea. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- It got little support before, but perhaps it was the way in which it was presented.
- How would the lede of such an article read? See draft:New York for my attempt. Andrewa (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- It looks good so far. I hope to offer help, please check the draft for these updates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest I don't think this helps much. Yes, the two concepts are intertwined and related, but they are still fundamentally a pair of very distinct things. A big city and a big US state. The vast majority of readers will want specifically one or the other, so I don't see the value of another article that somehow covers both. IMHO anyway, tho others may disagree with me. — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I can understand what you mean, but their is a reason why they are intertwined and related. I'm facing similar problems on the Emirates of the United Arab Emirates articles, which are debated on if they are distinct. This has resulted in some emirates like Abu Dhabi having separate articles for the city and emirates, but others having a combined page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Update Would this be a set index or, disambiguation or, something new and unique? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do not think there is any doubt that we should end up with dedicated articles on both New York State and New York City by whatever names! I could be wrong. But it seems a no-brainer to me.
- The suggestion as I understand it is that we could have, in addition, a higher-level article which covers both topics (and perhaps others), and that this could be validly formed from the article currently at New York. It's a bit out of left field, but lateral thinking is good. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest I don't think this helps much. Yes, the two concepts are intertwined and related, but they are still fundamentally a pair of very distinct things. A big city and a big US state. The vast majority of readers will want specifically one or the other, so I don't see the value of another article that somehow covers both. IMHO anyway, tho others may disagree with me. — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was actually thinking something different from that not a broad concept article but increasing the coverage of the city in the existing state article. PaleAqua (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- @PaleAqua: No offense, but I think as Amakuru stated about them being distinct that this would be troublesome. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Update We would also need to consider these articles Outline of New York and Index of New York-related articles, but I think that fixing these minor problems is worth it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Understood this time I think. I completely misinterpreted you when you raised this before (as I admitted at the time). Andrewa (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- It looks good so far. I hope to offer help, please check the draft for these updates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Although technical considerations come second to content, a broad concept article would also solve the problem of identifying wikilinks having an inappropriate target. Almost all links to the new page would be errors, and these would become easy to distinguish from deliberate links to the State article. Certes (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- True. This is another advantage, as people who watch the redirects towards the page could much easily fix it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Update I just realised that this would temporarily require the wikilinks to the state article being corrected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Update again Wikidata would also be have to fixed, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Against a broad-concept article, IMO a non-starter for reasons including that which Amakuru outlined, and another Trojan horse – this discussion should obviously be part of any move request-related moratorium. Castncoot (talk)
- Agree that this discussion should obviously be part of any move request-related moratorium, assuming by that you mean a broad moratorium that includes PT. This is even more directly related to the move proposal than is the broader PT discussion. But this is no Trojan horse. There is no deceit here, and frankly you seem preoccupied with the thought that we are all out to deceive you and the whole of New York. We are not. There's no point in that.
- But you are confusing three distinct issues. One is, will a broad-concept article or something similar be helpful? Another is, if we do create one, what should it be called? And the third, if we achieve consensus that something along these lines would be helpful at New York (a very big if in the current environment), how do we then proceed?
- IMO it's pointless to even discuss those second and third issues without some indication that we have addressed the first. And we seem to have fallen off the horse at the first fence. (;->
- I am still surprised... dumbfounded, even... that your former enthusiasm (to put it mildly) for the HLJC does not translate to at least interest in this proposal. As I see it, the whole motivation for this proposal was that you seemed to think that the New York article already serves as a sort of BCA, and should do so... that's the whole basis of the HLJC. Did I get that wrong? I must ask, was the HLJC itself just a Trojan horse of sorts? Andrewa (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please drop the hyperbole. HLJC is a concept whose practice has nothing to do with the quixotic idea of a broad concept article for the topic "New York". Castncoot (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hyperbole? Nothing like it. One of the panelists noted A few editors engaged in unreasonable rhetorical hyperbole (such as claims that a pagemove would case "irreparable harm" to Wikipedia, New York State, and New York City, or would "be confusing to one billion Africans and corrupt our children's education")..., but there is nothing remotely like those ridiculous claims above. Is there now?
- The connection is there whether you acknowledge it or not. Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please drop the hyperbole. HLJC is a concept whose practice has nothing to do with the quixotic idea of a broad concept article for the topic "New York". Castncoot (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Against a broad-concept article, IMO a non-starter for reasons including that which Amakuru outlined, and another Trojan horse – this discussion should obviously be part of any move request-related moratorium. Castncoot (talk)
Scope of the articles
Discussion above with User:Alanscottwalker suggests to me a way forward along the lines above. SO let's have another go at building consensus!
He speaks of New York City, created in 1898 under the laws of New York. But this is not the scope of our current New York City article at all. That article is much broader in scope, tracing the history on New York back to 1664. The article Mayor of New York City similarly traces the office back to 1665. as does List of mayors of New York City.
Now this seems to me to indicate one reason for the impasse we now face, and also a solution. If the New York City article were scoped to mean just the city since 1898, then some of the support for NYS as PT begins to make sense. It's not, of course, but at least one editor seems to think it is or at least should be. Is clarifying the scope of that article part of the solution?
I've just expanded the lede of draft:New York to better indicate its scope. [8] While perhaps not strictly a BCA, would an article scoped as I have there be an acceptable candidate for the base name New York?
I think it would satisfy the naming conventions. It also seems to me to satisfy the concerns expressed by those determined to keep an article covering the State at the base name. Comments? Does it? Andrewa (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That structure looks good to me. That might be a clean solution to the problem of people not wanting to place a disambiguation page at the base name. In fact I find it quite clarifying for those directly unfamiliar with the territory. Diego (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's the hope. We're an encyclopedia, catering to a broad range of readers (most of whom probably just assume that NYC is the capital of NYS, if indeed they have even heard of the state). The way some of this discussion has gone, you'd think we were being sponsored by the New York Tourist Bureau. We're here to inform, not promote. Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually the scope of the present article is broader not narrower, it covers the entire area/peoples/institutions included in the creation of the present New York City in 1898 under the laws of New York. The second sentence talks of the entire population of New York City (not some past time), indeed every section of the article references directly or by implication the whole of present New York City, which is broader than your partial focus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're saying that the current article on New York State (currently at New York) is broader in scope than the draft at draft:New York which covers both New York State and New York City? Seriously? That's a very strange claim! Parts of New York City (in its broadest sense) aren't even in New York State! Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, parts of the New York metropolitan area aren't in New York State. But the City entirely is. And that's not splitting hairs, that's the way the area is correctly refered to in the actual New York metro area. New York isn't like Sydney where there's no definitive border. Saying parts of the city aren't in New York State makes you sound ill-informed and unknowledgable about the subject. Really makes me question whether we should even listen to you in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Diego (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, see New York metropolitan area. As seen in the infobox, it covers four different states, and actually has a population larger than the state of New York itself. We all know that the NYC city boundaries are fixed and entirely within the state, but then again those Passaic and Bergen counties and all that are pretty much part of the city as well, even if not officially. — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be the first to acknowledge that Bergen County depends on NYC (Y'know, living there and all), but calling them "pretty much part of the city" is a stretch, being wholly politically independent, with no common governance outside of the federal government. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oknazevad isn't claiming that he owns the topic. But as I have also said before in this discussion, one loses credibility arguing about a topic without the requisite topic experience. So even though I'm perfectly allowed and welcome to start tinkering with the status of Sydney or New South Wales, I would only do so with great caution rather than running in like a bull in a porcelainware store. Castncoot (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- If we were to scope the Sydney article down to the CBD, or something equally ridiculous, I would hope that others would correct us, regardless of any local jargon... which seems to be the problem here, see below. The current situation of NYS being at New York is even more bizarre to most readers and to most editors. You seem to think that any attempt at addressing this is like a bull in a porcelainware store, but it's really just trying to make a better Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oknazevad isn't claiming that he owns the topic. But as I have also said before in this discussion, one loses credibility arguing about a topic without the requisite topic experience. So even though I'm perfectly allowed and welcome to start tinkering with the status of Sydney or New South Wales, I would only do so with great caution rather than running in like a bull in a porcelainware store. Castncoot (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be the first to acknowledge that Bergen County depends on NYC (Y'know, living there and all), but calling them "pretty much part of the city" is a stretch, being wholly politically independent, with no common governance outside of the federal government. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, see New York metropolitan area. As seen in the infobox, it covers four different states, and actually has a population larger than the state of New York itself. We all know that the NYC city boundaries are fixed and entirely within the state, but then again those Passaic and Bergen counties and all that are pretty much part of the city as well, even if not officially. — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Permit me to clarify. I'm not a NY local and find the local jargon rather bizarre I admit. I said New York City (in its broadest sense) and hoped this would cover such things as the New York metropolitan area. Obviously that isn't at all what you took me to mean!
- My initial reaction is that you are indeed splitting hairs. The point of my statement was, the draft overview article is intended to cover and does cover both the whole New York metropolitan area, and the whole state, and anything else that a naive reader such as myself might reasonably expect to be included in an article on the New York we're talking about. And that's why it's very important to talk to me and others who are not from New York, and don't know the local jargon. Most Wikipedia readers don't come from New York, and we need to cater for both those who do and those who don't.
- I remain of the opinion that the claim that the scope of the present article is broader not narrower is bizarre. It seems that you think it's correct, but to me that is also bizarre.
- Can you clarify? I'm coming to think that that this colossal difference in our understanding of what seem to be quite simple words underlies a lot of the whole controversy... which is after all, all about what we call the articles. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I specifically used Sydney as an example because I know that it has a fairly nebulous definition because of the structure of local government in NSW, and that you'd be familiar with that. What I'm saying is that there is no such ambiguity in New York City, and the boundaries are definitive and understood. "New York City" equals the five boroughs and nothing more. If something is outside the five boroughs, it is not New York City, even if it is well within the metro area. No one considers Bergen County, New Jersey, part of New York City, even though it's right across the Hudson River and connected by the George Washington Bridge. It's very much part of the New York Metropolitan Area, but it is not New York City.
- Conversely, Buffalo, New York is a major city in the state, and is a place so one may talk about if refering to "New York", but it is no way part of the New York Metropolitan Area, as it's all the way at the other end of the state, a seven hour drive away. So equating "New York Metropolitan Area" with "New York" is simply incorrect, as the metro area does not encompass the whole state, but does encompass parts of adjacent states. As is equating "New York Metropolitan Area" with "New York City", as the city has definite legal boundaries that play out in politics, criminal and civil law, mail delivery, and innumerable cultural and economic factors. Someone from Nassau County, New York might call themselves a New Yorker, but that's because they're refering to the state. They wouldn't say they live in New York City, even though it's right adjacent to the county (they'd call themselves a Long Islander). Essentially, the point is, "New York City (in the broadest sense)" is incorrect usage.
- Essentially, I agree that "New York" can be ambiguous, and the state should carry a disambiguator (which is how I !voted in the move discussion; the city is already naturally disambiguated and should not move) but I don't see the need to rehash the discussion when the last as-formal-as-it-gets discussion is still not fully closed. There is no deadline, and it is not a crisis that needs to be addressed right now; a possible moratorium should be respected instead of approached with a "got to get this done before he moritorium" attitude. That's counter productive and looks bad, to be honest. Forcing discussion doesn't work if there's only a few people participating. There certainly isn't enough here to make any permanent decisions.oknazevad (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- For most of us the phrase New York City (in the broadest sense) is a natural thing to say in the context, and I don't see any better way to express it. It would be almost universally and correctly understood. But a very small minority of readers do have a big problem with it and similar phrases, and they are well represented and very vocal in this discussion. Which is the main point.
- So I agree with nearly all of what you say above, but it but misses the point I think. To say that New York City (in the broadest sense) is incorrect usage is not helpful unless you can suggest some alternative.
- Agree 100% that forcing discussion does not work. Building consensus can be tricky, particularly when there are others (not you certainly) hard at work to undermine it. Doing my best! Thanks for your efforts. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Diego (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, parts of the New York metropolitan area aren't in New York State. But the City entirely is. And that's not splitting hairs, that's the way the area is correctly refered to in the actual New York metro area. New York isn't like Sydney where there's no definitive border. Saying parts of the city aren't in New York State makes you sound ill-informed and unknowledgable about the subject. Really makes me question whether we should even listen to you in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're saying that the current article on New York State (currently at New York) is broader in scope than the draft at draft:New York which covers both New York State and New York City? Seriously? That's a very strange claim! Parts of New York City (in its broadest sense) aren't even in New York State! Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Should we move the draft
I think draft:New York which was set up just to explore the concept is now useful enough to move to the article namespace.
Now don't panic...
Obviously it can't go to New York. But it could go to New York (overview). That would be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent (wp:AT of course), and very helpful to readers, particularly if we keep it short and focused. And there's no other article likely to compete for that title.
And if it is to move, better done before we have a moratorium to consider. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Doesn't it defeat the entire point of the draft? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to see something. I don't like what's happening now. Peter Flass (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- The draft will certainly be useful with a title such as [[New York (overview)]] if we wikilink to it from appropriate places such as the state, city and dab pages. I think that's worth doing, even if other advantages (speedy loading, identification of careless links) can't be achieved because the overview isn't called [[New York]].
- Thanks, User:Certes, this seems to be from you [9] but the sig somehow got lost.
Absolutely nothing should be moved at this time. The actual move discussion has not been given final closure by the admins who were agreed upon by consensus. And that's okay; there is WP:NODEADLINE. Frankly, if someone links to New York intending the city, then just fix the link as it is found. Again, no deadline.
The draft itself is exceedingly redundant, by the way.
Frankly, that there is a discussion at all regarding "primary topic", a bit of distinct Wikipedia jargon, is questionable. The only reason to discuss that is in relation to article titles. That we "must have the discussion before the moratorium" tells me that it's just an attempt to end run around the unclosed discussion. No actions should be taken because of this discussion. oknazevad (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with some of this. It's very sad that we need to do this.
- But it's far less an attempt to end run around the unclosed discussion than the various attempts to end run around both our naming conventions and the reasons we have them. Surely, there is enough evidence by now that NYS is not the PT, and that by the normal discussion closing criteria, we have consensus on that? Surely, there is enough evidence by now that the current situation is harmful to our readers?
- And against that, there is not one shred of evidence that the current situation has any advantage whatsoever for our readers, or complies with either the spirit or letter of the guidelines. All we have is procedural stonewalling and flawed arguments. And we have a great variety of both, pursued with strange enthusiasm.
- The current situation disadvantages our readers and makes a mockery of our guidelines. Please don't blame me for wanting to go through all legitimate channels to work towards consensus-driven progress on these two outstanding problems. Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to understand... a little sub-poll to help me
Above are some very interesting comments. In particular, I naively referred to New York City (in its broadest sense) and was rather curtly told by a New Yorker (this is important) that all of NYC was within New York State and, more to the point, that I was showing such ignorance that I should not even be heard in the discussion.
This I think is getting right to the heart of the whole controversy! It might explain not only why the disagreement, but also why the passion, and indicate how we can address both to build consensus. So a little, entirely voluntary, survey:
Does the phrase New York City (in its broadest sense) include all of the New York metropolitan area?
And just to be clear, I mean the whole phrase New York City (in its broadest sense). The (in its broadest sense) is part of the phrase I used, a phrase which was completely misunderstood. And I do not blame anyone for the misunderstanding. It takes two to communicate. I just want to investigate exactly why I failed to communicate effectively on that occasion. I think it might reveal a great deal!
So please answer Yes, or No, or Don't know, as a first-level bullet, and also say where you are from. And feel free to add any other comments you think helpful. TIA Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Subpoll survey
- Yes. Hobbys Yards, New South Wales. Andrewa (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion on the subpoll
- This is frivolous to hold an opinion poll like this. Would you ever hold such a poll to ask if people think that 3+3=7? It's also annoying to be finding out today that at least one person leading the side supporting a move is not even properly informed of the basic facts. I'm not happy about about the enormous amount of of time I have wasted upon this ludicrous exercise. Please, this is way more than enough already. Castncoot (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, Andrewa, your statement above that you were "rather curtly told by a New Yorker (this is important) that all of NYC was within New York State" is factually false – as Oknazevad mentioned, he is not a New Yorker, but rather a New Jerseyan. I request you to please defer to those who actually have topic experience to make the weighty decisions here. Castncoot (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fully concur with Castncoot that this proposed poll makes no sense.
- The basic facts that Castncoot is referring to are as follows: Americans use cities as metonyms for their metro areas only in very casual small talk (especially when speaking with strangers while traveling outside of their own metro areas), but are more precise in formal contexts. For example, when an American celebrity gives an interview to a journalist writing a detailed biographical profile, he would never say "I was born in New York City" if not actually born in the five boroughs, because the next question would be which borough. Rather, he would say, "I was born in Newark, New Jersey, just across the Hudson River from New York City."
- In order to understand why Americans are so sensitive to the boundaries of governmental entities, you have to read up on identity politics in the Thirteen Colonies---namely, the strong tendency of colonists to identify as citizens of their colony, the many reasons for why they felt that way, and its ramifications. It is only when you understand the reasons underlying that tendency that the very idea of the United States (as in multiple states) begins to make sense. After all, it would have been a lot easier to just form a unitary state and turn the existing colonies into huge counties. The reasons I am alluding to have been amply explained in numerous historical books and textbooks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I thought this was the norm everywhere. A place has defined boundries or it doesn't. it would be like calling a Canadian from Niagara Falls (Canada) an American because he lived just across the river from Niagara Falls (New York). I think the proposal has it right, the New York metropolitan area (or the tri-state area, although it only includes pargts of three states) is not the same as the City of New York. I'm a new yorker, but from upstate, so perhaps that doesn't count.Peter Flass (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is exactly what I want to understand, or a large part of it at least. The next question, of course, will be: How do we best deal with these sensitivities? Andrewa (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:Castncoot. Although you have chose not to participate in the survey (so far at least), I think that makes your position clear, and it's helpful.
- According to our current articles, Bergen County is within the New York City metropolitan area. But I understand that its residents might object to the term New Yorker, just as many Scots don't like to be called British.
- And I apologise for any offence caused. But is there any better term for those within all the various areas that might be included in New York City by the naive reader?
- My intention is not frivolous. It is a serious attempt to understand the issues, in order to eventually build some sort of consensus, and I ask that you respect that. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not objection, so much as looking at you like you've got three heads, as the idea of calling a New Jerseyan a New Yorker runs counter to basic fact that New Jersey is not part of New York (city or state), even if the northern half (roughly) is in the NYC metro area and largely dominated by satellite cities and bedroom suburbs of New York City. It isn't about offense (though there may some part of that) as it just is incorrect by basic geography. The Scots example is a weak analogy, because Scotland is still part of the U.K.. It'd be more like calling a New Zealander an Australian. It's just factually incorrect.
- As for the second, very reasonable question, there really is no single demonym that covers people from the entire New York City metro area (other than "American"). It doesn't help that definitions of the area vary, nor does it help that not all New Yorkers (meaning the state), New Jerseyans, nor Connecticuters are in the New York City metro area. It also doesn't help that "New Yorker" is the correct demonym for someone living anywhere in the state, not just the city; it's almost as if the city doesn't really have its own demonym, though when the mayor refers to "New Yorkers", he's definitely talking about residents of the city.
- But the other part of that question, as to what a "naïve reader" might also include in something called "New York City", it seems to me our educational purpose would be best served by eliminating the naïveté and letting people realize that, while still living within the NYC metro area, people in Northern New Jersey and Southwest Connecticut are never called New Yorkers, and that people who live on Long Island or the Lower Hudson Valley are so called not because they're from the New York City but because they live in the state of New York. We'd be better off informing within the existing articles than a repetitive high concept article. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, Andrewa, your statement above that you were "rather curtly told by a New Yorker (this is important) that all of NYC was within New York State" is factually false – as Oknazevad mentioned, he is not a New Yorker, but rather a New Jerseyan. I request you to please defer to those who actually have topic experience to make the weighty decisions here. Castncoot (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is frivolous to hold an opinion poll like this. Would you ever hold such a poll to ask if people think that 3+3=7? It's also annoying to be finding out today that at least one person leading the side supporting a move is not even properly informed of the basic facts. I'm not happy about about the enormous amount of of time I have wasted upon this ludicrous exercise. Please, this is way more than enough already. Castncoot (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, although you have also (for whatever reason) chosen not to participate in the survey, that very much addresses what I wish to explore by it.
Yes, I suspected that you and many others who live in or close to New York would look at me as if I have three heads. That's a very to the point. You say it's more like calling a New Zealander an Australian. It's just factually incorrect. That is your viewpoint, and it's a valid viewpoint, and it is dominating this discussion.
And the underlying question is, should this viewpoint (which has historically chosen the title of the NYS article, because of course New York-etc-ers were the first and still are the major contributors to that article)... should this viewpoint continue to decide the naming?
To most of the world, it is far, far worse to call a New Zealander an Aussie. New Zealand has never been part of Australia, and still is not, in any sense. It is, as you say, factually inaccurate. But to you it looks a similar thing to calling a person who lives in a dormitory suburb of New York, which is officially part of the NY Metropolitan area, a New Yorker. From a global perspective, who has the three heads?
As has been pointed out, there are historical and cultural factors underlying this local perspective. We may be culturally naive in Aust, but we did watch The Swamp Fox as children, and as we grew up realised what an impact this history (which of course largely took place in the north-eastern states) has had on Americans and their culture (and I guess Canadians might now object to me calling the US America... follow those last two links, it's interesting).
And that's exactly what we need to address if we wish to build consensus. It is understandable that many (perhaps all) of your viewpoint wish to frustrate the building of consensus. It's a very common reading of the closing instructions that this is a valid way to argue. I believe it's still a mistaken view, but that's another sub-issue, to be dealt with in due course.
Back to the chase. Our naming conventions clearly state that the most important issue in deciding how to disambiguate is whether or not there is a primary topic (and if so what it is, but this question only becomes relevant if there is consensus that there is a primary topic).
And our naming conventions are, in this case, right on the money. There is now discussion about how much this article title matters. Again, I think there is a flaw in arguing for the status quo on the grounds that it doesn't really matter either way, especially in the light of the passion that some have expressed, but that seems to be the argument. But there is no real doubt that Wikipedia would be improved (however slightly) for the readers if we could eventually follow the more global perspective, as our naming conventions would have us do.
Which brings me to your final point: How do we best educate readers? To me that's a no-brainer. We get them to the information they want, and provide them with accurate, factual information when they get there. We certainly do not promote a local POV by our choice of article title... as hard as this may be to some editors associated with the particular article and its topic.
Again, our naming converntions are right on the money. They normally are. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Bzzzzt. Francis Marion, "The Swamp Fox" was from South Carolina, not exactly the north-east. Peter Flass (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- (replying to User:Peter Flass above) Yes, but many other significant events of the period, including ones specifically mentioned in the TV series, took place further north, and influenced the culture there, did they not? In at least one episode (the fictional) Marion himself travels to the north-eastern states, from memory. Andrewa (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, to answer the first, I haven't participated in the survey because a survey is the wrong methodology/format for this discussion. That no one else has participated either is evidence of that.
- Secondly, there is no local POV/opinion in my statement, just facts. New Jerseyabs are not called "New Yorkers", regardless of how close it is. I'm not going to speculate why that is, I'm just here to present the facts. oknazevad (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- But then again, if you said you were going to "the city", people would assume you meant New York, wouldn't they. Not Newark or Jersey City or Trenton or anywhere like that? — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- These facts are contrary to the evidence above. New Jerseyabs are at least occasionally called New Yorkers... perhaps only in ignorance of local usage.
- This broader usage does not mean we have three heads, and to attempt to impose the local usage on the rest of the world is indeed POV. It may be a commendable thing, but this is not the way to do it. Campaign to change the global usage by all means. And then Wikipedia will follow. Not the other way around. Present the facts in the articles, appropriately sourced, and this might well help the campaign. That's a good thing to do.
- I am not questioning this local usage. I freely admit that I have little if any knowledge of it, like most readers, and the survey above is just one way in which I have sought information.
- What I am saying is, local usage is not the whole story or even most of it. Wikipedia article titles should normally take a global perspective, reflecting global usage, as the guidelines very clearly indicate. If this is a special case where they should not, then we need to build a consensus on this, and incorporate it into the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- To which facts are you referring? I see no evidence that New Jerseyans are called New Yorkers. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see no evidence, either. In fact, this forum is the first time that I have ever even heard of such a comparison. By the way, I have to interject a little humor here. Oknazevad inadvertently misspelled the term as "New Jerseyabs," and Andrewa then obediently continued the same misspelling. Lol! Can a person be legitimately labeled both a New South Welshman and a Victorian at the same time in Australia? Castncoot (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Too subtle for either of you obviously. I used the term (above). I'm a native speaker of English, so trivially one such uses the term (however ignorantly). QED.
- The fact that you've never heard it so used (not before, anyway) is admitted. But it's quite natural for one whose knowledge of the area is limited... most of us... to refer to anyone from New York City Metropolitan Area as a New Yorker. Many who have heard of New York would not have heard of Bergen County. I do remember hearing someone introduce themselves as being from there years ago, and I was at the time none the wiser. If they'd said New York then from your point of view (and possibly theirs) they'd have been lying. However from mine, that would have been accurate information. I would not have felt mislead if they had later said "Actually, we're in New Jersey", any more than I would have thought someone was misleading me if they said "I'm from Sydney" when they really lived in the City of Parramatta, or if they had said "I live in London" when in fact they lived in the City of Westminster.
- Yes, I wondered at the term Jerseyabs. It's a good thing I'm not claiming to know American English... if such exists (;-> The Scots and the Irish leave you close to tears. There even are places where English completely disappears. In America they haven't used it for years. - Henry Higgins. We have some strange terms here... do you know where a Novocastrian is from? I guess Taswegian is obvious.
- The joke is on me for taking it at face value. Accepted! Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I just did My Fair Lady with my summer theatre group. That line always gets a laugh. From New Jerseyans. (I hate typos, by the way, and am slightly embarrassed by that one!.)
- But I think the point Castncoot and I trying to tell you is that you are incorrect in calling New Jerseyans "New Yorkers". Just because one person does it doesn't make it a valid usage. I know that Wikipedia, like most modern reference works that seek to present material neutrally, is descriptive not prescriptive, but there's still a minimum prevelance necessary for something to be considered more than just a mistake.
- Oh, and again, the City of Westminster is a port analogy, as it's still part of the consolidated greater London, so people living in Westminster do live in London. The name of the City of London, meaning the medieval square mile, is akin to Manhattan also being "New York County", or the pre-consolidation portion of Toronto being known as Old Toronto. oknazevad (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see no evidence, either. In fact, this forum is the first time that I have ever even heard of such a comparison. By the way, I have to interject a little humor here. Oknazevad inadvertently misspelled the term as "New Jerseyabs," and Andrewa then obediently continued the same misspelling. Lol! Can a person be legitimately labeled both a New South Welshman and a Victorian at the same time in Australia? Castncoot (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- To which facts are you referring? I see no evidence that New Jerseyans are called New Yorkers. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- What I am saying is, local usage is not the whole story or even most of it. Wikipedia article titles should normally take a global perspective, reflecting global usage, as the guidelines very clearly indicate. If this is a special case where they should not, then we need to build a consensus on this, and incorporate it into the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Is Westminster really a port analogy? When last I was there, the shipping was making no attempt to go further East than London Bridge. Has it perhaps fallen down? (;->
More to the point, what's the difference between Westminster being in Greater London and part of New Jersey being in the New York City Metropolitan Area? In particular, how is this distinction relevant to the topic under discussion?
On the question of attestation, many linguistic papers do need to rely on a single attestation in their text corpus on occasions. It's not ideal, but the correct approach is to seek more data, not to dismiss the example.
The underlying question I am investigating is: Does most of the English-speaking world use the term New York in a significantly different way to New-York-etc-ers? And the use of the term New Yorker is obviously related, as they have a common root.
Because if this is the case, if there is a significant difference, then user:Castncoot's request above (and many other places in slightly different terms but fairly consistently) to please defer to those who actually have topic experience to make the weighty decisions here is in fact an invitation to lead us astray, is it not? How will we find out? Do you see why I think we should try to find out?
I do try to be happy to be educated! wp:creed#15 Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- "More to the point, what's the difference between Westminster being in Greater London and part of New Jersey being in the New York City Metropolitan Area? In particular, how is this distinction relevant to the topic under discussion?"
- The difference is that Greater London has a common government with a mayor and assembly overseeing the whole of it, whereas the New York metropolitan area does not. Greater London is a consolidated city, much as the five boroughs of New York City are (fun fact: at the time of consolidation in 1898 and for a few years thereafter, the modern consolidated city was often refered to as "Greater New York"). In other words, the analogy is not between Greater London and the New York metro area, but between Greater London and the consolidated, 5-borough NYC. The analogy for the New York metro area is the London Commuter Belt. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Love it, perfectly and brilliantly stated, Oknazevad. In other words, Andrewa, governance is the operative word here, and it is absolutely relevant. By the way, speaking of governance, you seem not to have answered my question above - namely, can an Australian be legitimately labeled both a New South Welshman and a Victorian at the same time? I want to be very cautious in making any assumptions here, Andrewa, and that's why I politely ask. My assumption along the same lines, by the way, would be that this is not a legitimate possibility, because the those two Aussie states are governed by different state governments. Castncoot (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that emphasis on governance just the HLJC by another name?
- Yes, I can remember an example from my own experience where a number of Westpac bank branches were both in Victoria and NSW... depending on context. They were the border-hop branches near the Murray river (the state border) which were part of our Victorian computer network, but were physically in NSW and of course had NSW BSBs. In the Monday morning Computer Ops trouble meeting, they were included in the Victoria reports (some of them regularly at one stage), and discussed as Victorian branches.
- But that isn't even remotely relevant, unless New York means New York State. In this particular context, when we are discussing whether people who are explicitly in another state are also in New York, New York is not likely to mean the state. In this context it is far more likely to mean something else... perhaps the city, perhaps the metropolitan area, perhaps something else again. But not the state. Isn't it?
- In that I've had a go at your question, you might note that in the perfectly and brilliantly stated reply you so admired, User:Oknazevad ignored three of mine. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that there's a parallel to the London Commuter belt. Disagree that it's a better analogy. What would you see as the analogy to Greater London in the case of New York?
- See also reply to User:Castncoot above. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've already said that. You seem to be ignoring my answers, too. But for the sake of discussion, the analogy to Greater London, explicitly meaning the area governed by the London Assembly and Mayor of London is New York City itself, as it is a consolidated city governed by the New York City Council and the Mayor of New York City. "Greater London" does not refer to the London metro area as a whole. oknazevad (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- See also reply to User:Castncoot above. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The direct counterpart to Greater London would be the five boroughs of New York City, with very distinct boundaries and one mayor, unlike the New York metropolitan area, which is more loosely defined, comprising hundreds of different municipalities, and having no common governance whatsoever. Meanwhile, I believe that your answer to my question about the Aussie states and their residents was evasive at best. You've cited an example of one private business apparently using a term for strictly business purposes. Would individuals living physically in NSW but near the border with Victoria be properly classified as Victorians, or for that matter, Melbournians or Melbournites? Castncoot (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the big Australian cities aren't close to state boundaries, so it's hard to make a direct comparison. Maybe Gold Coast, Queensland is the nearest example. At the southern end of the conurbation is Tweed Heads, New South Wales. Would people there consider themselves Gold Coastarians? Interestingly, during the summer months they aren't even on the same timezone as the neighbouring areas due to daylight saving time. Tweed Heads sees in the newyear one hour before Gold Coast. That contrasts with Gary, Indiana, which is out of sync and on a different timezone than most of the rest of the state, presumably because it's part of Chicagoland. — Amakuru (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The direct counterpart to Greater London would be the five boroughs of New York City, with very distinct boundaries and one mayor, unlike the New York metropolitan area, which is more loosely defined, comprising hundreds of different municipalities, and having no common governance whatsoever. Meanwhile, I believe that your answer to my question about the Aussie states and their residents was evasive at best. You've cited an example of one private business apparently using a term for strictly business purposes. Would individuals living physically in NSW but near the border with Victoria be properly classified as Victorians, or for that matter, Melbournians or Melbournites? Castncoot (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not trying to be evasive... and Westpac is not a private business as we think of it, but your ignorance of our local terminology doesn't count against you any more than my ignorance of yours should be counted against me. Australian retail banks tend to be in some senses bigger than US ones, owing to the different regulations, and we had some very funny dealings with IBM as a result. At one stage we had the biggest IMS DC network in the world (it may even still be the case), and there were some hilarious blunders made by staff in IBM USA, much to the embarrassment of IBM Australia. The Texas mentality we called it, they regularly just assumed that the biggest of everything was in the USA.
- You are both saying that there is nothing that people talk about enough to give it a name that corresponds to Greater London, and are instead describing something devised for this discussion. That tells us absolutely nothing, however brilliantly stated it may be. My analogy stands. No analogy is perfect, that's not the point.
- To restate it, an outsider (most of us) is just as entitled and likely to think of a resident (any resident) of the New York Metropolitan Area as being from New York as they are a resident of Westminster as being from London. Most of us know at least roughly where and what New York is (or think we do, anyway), far fewer know where New Jersey is, and even fewer know the details of US state and local government. Do you wish to question any of that? Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Westpac is indeed a business, and when I say "private", I mean that it is not an arm of the government in the same way that the Reserve Bank of Australia is, so that is probably an accurate description. I'm not saying that it's a privately held corporation, which would gave a different connotation altogether. Would any Queenslander be properly labeled as a New South Welshman or as a Sydneysider? And Amakuru, I challenge you to find even a single person from Gary, Indiana who would be labeled as a Chicagoan. Parts of Pennsylvania actually lie within the New York metropolitan area, but many residents in those areas are unlikely to even be aware of this factoid and would be no less than aghast to be called a New Yorker (hyperbole simply for emphasis there, but they would simply deny being a New Yorker citing geographical correctness, they would call themselves Pennsylvanians). And finally, I don't know how many times either Oknazevad or I has/have to repeat this answer, but Greater London is the direct, analogous counterpart to the five boroughs of New York City taken collectively. Castncoot (talk)
- Exactly. The difference, as I've tried to explain to you five times (at least) is that Westminster is in London, it is one of its boroughs, a constituent part of the whole city; its residents vote for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. Greater London has definite political boundaries, just like New York City, but unlike Sydney. On the other hand, North Jersey is not part of NYC; it is not under the same jurisdiction (outside of the federal government). That's why the analogy doesn't work. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that you were quite in order in describing Westpac as a private business, User:Castncoot, regardless of how strange it sounded to me. I understood it perfectly well. And similarly, the rest of the world is equally entitled to use the term New York in the way that makes sense to us... ignorant as we may be of local usage. The official position is important, and is described in the article, in order to dispel any ignorance on our part. But the article title is based on global usage, not local usage.
- You ask Would any Queenslander be properly labeled as a New South Welshman or as a Sydneysider? Most unlikely. But if the Brisbane dormitory belt were to extend all the way to Tweed Heads, and if in recognition of this the Brisbane Metropolitan Area were to include Tweed Heads, then we'd have a parallel to New York, and residents of Tweed Heads would in a sense be in both New South Wales and Brisbane.
- They would still not be in two states of course. That suggestion is a red herring. And as stated, residents of Gol Gol are already in both New South Wales and Mildura, despite Mildura being in Victoria. But they aren't in two states. Life (and language) is like that sometimes! Andrewa (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Westpac is indeed a business, and when I say "private", I mean that it is not an arm of the government in the same way that the Reserve Bank of Australia is, so that is probably an accurate description. I'm not saying that it's a privately held corporation, which would gave a different connotation altogether. Would any Queenslander be properly labeled as a New South Welshman or as a Sydneysider? And Amakuru, I challenge you to find even a single person from Gary, Indiana who would be labeled as a Chicagoan. Parts of Pennsylvania actually lie within the New York metropolitan area, but many residents in those areas are unlikely to even be aware of this factoid and would be no less than aghast to be called a New Yorker (hyperbole simply for emphasis there, but they would simply deny being a New Yorker citing geographical correctness, they would call themselves Pennsylvanians). And finally, I don't know how many times either Oknazevad or I has/have to repeat this answer, but Greater London is the direct, analogous counterpart to the five boroughs of New York City taken collectively. Castncoot (talk)
- To restate it, an outsider (most of us) is just as entitled and likely to think of a resident (any resident) of the New York Metropolitan Area as being from New York as they are a resident of Westminster as being from London. Most of us know at least roughly where and what New York is (or think we do, anyway), far fewer know where New Jersey is, and even fewer know the details of US state and local government. Do you wish to question any of that? Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Without peeking, I'd say a novocastrian is someone from Newcastle, but that's Latin. I can't see that there will ever be a consensus on this. People can quote arguments at each other all day. Peter Flass (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- 10/10 on novocastrian.
- There may never by unanimity, agreed. But I remain hopeful on an eventual rough consensus.
- To give up on consensus is against Wikipedia policy in many subtle ways. It could even be seen as a violation of wp:AGF. If we have good faith, then we should all be willing to examine our views, and admit the possibility of changing them. Yes, that means me too.
- Conversely, to not be willing to examine our own views (or even claims) is a tacit admission that we have little faith in them. Hence the observation doth protest too much, methinks. Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I think someone already mentioned this, but everything has a proper name:
- New York City - the five boroughs (political boundaries)
- New York State - (political boundaries)
- New York Metropolitan area or the Tri-state area - NYC + Long Island, parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, and other parts of NY at least as far north as Yonkers (conventional boundaries)
"New York" could equally well refer to any of these. I think this was in the proposed disambiguation page. Peter Flass (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yonkers? You mean the city that directly borders the Bronx? The one that is literally adjacent to NYC. No one uses that as the northern extent of the NYC metro area. Try Poughkeepsie, at the least. If you don't know the geography, why are you commenting? oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
A loaded question
I want to ask a loaded question, particularly but not only addressed to User:Castncoot and User:Oknazevad, and I want to be transparent about it.
But first I wish to answer a few: Why am I doing this? Isn't the RM result obvious? Do I expect the closing panel to read this section at all?
I'm still trying to build consensus. If I could convince the two editors mentioned above to think again, there might I think still be a chance of a consensus close. Or if they could convince me, same. Or if we must have a no consensus close, then when it comes up again whether in 2017 or 2022, this will be valuable data to build consensus then. It will give us all something to think about even if we agree not to discuss it further. Some light reading for the next six years perhaps.
And no, the panel shouldn't even think of wading through it for the moment, and that's why it's best on this talk page not on one of the RM subpages.
So why a loaded question? (And I note that our article on loaded question doesn't match what I mean by one in this case.)
I have been asked above to provide an Australian example of a situation analogous to the New York/New Jersey situation. And I think I have a beauty. Last time I was in Mildura I stayed at the Mildura Riverview Motel, in Gol Gol, see their website (and I'd go back there).
Gol Gol is in New South Wales. Mildura is in Victoria... most of it anyway, depending on exactly what you mean by Mildura. Is Gol Gol in Mildura? Are parts of New Jersey in New York?
So here's my loaded question for the New-York-etc-ers among us...
Are there local businesses in Bergen County or similar locations that call themselves New York (whatever)?
(Substitute something for whatever, in whatever position... New York Florist, Flowers of New York, Roses 4 U (New York), whatever... it doesn't even have to be a business, but that's the obvious first place to look. Just a name for something that says New York but is actually in New Jersey.)
I had a go at Googling it and maybe I didn't have the search quite right... lots of ghits, too much work to sort out the relevant ones. I need a local, or a local 'phone book at least.
It's a loaded question (as I understand the term, is there a better one?) because regardless of the answer, I think it will be linguistic data that supports a move, eventually. We will see. Either way, I hope it will eventually help to build consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure what that question proves. There are plenty of business here that call themselves "New York (whatever)" and/or use artwork and themes of New York. and I live in the southern United States. FWIW several of the closest to me are actually referring to the state and not the city. One is a buffalo style wing place and the other is covered with artwork related to Endicott. Granted the third closest one serves New York style pizza and has mostly pictures of NYC but their logo is the outline of the state. PaleAqua (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- This has no bearing on my close, nor do I think it especially relevant to the naming issue ... but how about New York Jets and New York Giants? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, good stuff. As MetLife Stadium is in New Jersey, the New York in those titles can't refer to the state, as far as I can see. Those examples were I think raised before (somewhere!) but I didn't see their significance at the time.
- Those football teams were based in New York before they moved to New Jersey. The teams simply retained the name New York, likely to keep the cachet that "New York" carries. And Andrewa, using private (meaning non-governmental) businesses as examples doesn't help your argument. Castncoot (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Relevant observation regarding the teams, but perhaps not the last word.
- As I haven't formulated an argument yet, let alone expressed one, your assessing it seems... Um, words fail me actually. It seems to be either clairvoyance or stupidity. And you're certainly not stupid.
- One Mexican peering out of haystack at Goofy trying to manhandle a large bull: "Aiieeh! He ees either thee world's bravest man or thee world's beegest fool!" Second Mexican beside him: "Nobody could be so beeg a fool." Third Mexican : "Then eet is bravery." Wasn't Carl Barks brilliant?
- The argument that one's factual, adminstrative location somehow isn't important. We're getting nowhere here, and I feel like my time resources are getting wasted, so this will be my last comment on the subject for now. Don't look for the rare examples first, look for the common ones first instead. There are hundreds of businesses in Bergen County which carry the name "New Jersey this," or "Garden State (NJ's nickname) that." The New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway, the two biggest roads in New Jersey, entirely public and operated by the Government of New Jersey, run through Bergen County. Might you find a rare business carrying the term "New York" in its title, perhaps as either a carryover or a branch of a business based in New York? Sure. But keep WP:UNDUE in mind. That's all for now from me. Castncoot (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think I should be honest here, even at the risk of personal attack. I also feel that you are wasting your time and resources, and mine, and those of some others. This is not intended as an attack on you personally, it's about an issue that affects the oppose faction and their arguments generally. I feel that anyone who sets out to gain a no consensus decision, as you and others appear to be doing, is wasting everyone's time. The aim of all Wikipedia talk pages is to build consensus, and I have said that several times before, and have yet to be challenged on it. But it seems to be being ignored.
- Agree that there are There are hundreds of businesses in Bergen County which carry the name "New Jersey this," or "Garden State (NJ's nickname) that" etc.. I'm surprised if it is so few.
- Agree that areas concerned are in New Jersey. No argument at all there. But they can also be referred to as parts of New York. So I'm not suggesting that New Jersey Daffy Dills (if there is such a florist) has made a mistake and should be called New York Daffy Dills instead. What I'm saying is that the shop next door, Roses 4 U (New York), hasn't made a mistake either. Nobody seeing these two signs together in one street, or even on the same shop, would think that somebody had made such an obvious mistake that they had three heads - except perhaps to argue for a no consensus that there is any ambiguity decision on Wikipedia. Even that is a stretch.
- But disagree that I have ever suggested, or ever will suggest, that one's factual, adminstrative location somehow isn't important (there's an i missing I know, but I'm in a quandry whether to put it in... if I do I'm misquoting you, if I don't it's another Jerseyabs). This is just the HLJC discussion all over again.
- And there's no significant support here on Wikipedia for considering it more important than primary topic, or even as a factor (important or otherwise) in determining primary topic. There isn't even any desire on the part of its proponents to discuss including it in the PT guidelines. We all know it's a dead duck.
Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links
There are some pages that will always present problems of this nature. For example, Supreme court, Mouse, and Apple are all the correct primary topics for those terms, but frequently draw errant links intending other popular topics. For an article with 75,000 incoming links, it is a major operation to find the clearly wrong ones, and several editors might end up retreading the same ground in the course of doing this. I therefore propose the following rather radical solution:
- Keep the page name as is for now (until there is a clear consensus to move it); but:
- Change all existing links from other articles intended to point to the page so that they pipe through New York (state) (e.g. "Chuck Schumer is a Senator from [[New York (state)|New York]]"); most of these can be done by a bot.
- Once the clearly intentional links have been sorted out that way, fix all the remaining links that intend New York City (or any other meaning).
Once all the links intending another target have been fixed, restore all the intentional links to point directly to New York.After this operation is complete, set up a weekly bot report of all new links created pointing to New York; a bot can fix obvious cases ("New York City"), and an editor can go over the rest. Remember, it took us 15 years to accumulate the existing 75,000 links, which comes to only about 100 links per week. A bot report can provide a line or two of context before and after the link itself so that the editor need not look at the actual article to determine which ones intend the city.
Before anyone gets up in arms over the amount of work involved in the above proposal, I volunteer to do it all myself, and to get it done by the end of September. I need a clear consensus to go forward with a project like this so that I don't get a lot of WP:NOTBROKEN complaints while initially piping the links. bd2412 T 18:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I second the cleanup operation, although I don't understand the purpose of piping links through (state) and recovering the original direct link afterwards. Is it to keep track of which links have been processed? If so, I would remove step 4 in the process - just leave the links through the redirect forever. WP:NOTBROKEN actually supports having a redirect and not making it direct, and links like [[New York (state)|New York]] will always remain unambiguous to readers who hover to read the target URL and/or read the navigation popup; in fact this kind of piping through the parenthetical disambiguation is commonly done in disambiguation discussions when a topic is placed as a primary topic. Diego (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Diego just change the existing links to [[New York (state)]] or [[New York (state)|New York]] for the time being. Also the examples you've given could use these ideas too, but lets see how this goes first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've actually done this a bit with Supreme court - people often link to the redirect Supreme Court when they mean a specific court (usually the U.S. Supreme Court); when they mean the generic sense, I pipe it through the lowercase direct link to make it clear that the link has been checked. I have no objection to leaving the link piped, though I worry that editors will tend to try to "fix" it. bd2412 T 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Diego just change the existing links to [[New York (state)]] or [[New York (state)|New York]] for the time being. Also the examples you've given could use these ideas too, but lets see how this goes first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic aside about supreme courts |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I'm always in favour of cleaning up, especially when someone volunteers! We might want to think about what to do with content like
The Bronx is in [[New York]]
where either the city or state meaning is valid. I'd go for the more specificThe Bronx is in [[New York City]]
, with the word City displayed to make it obvious where the link goes, but I can see reasons for treating the text in other ways. Of course, any decision would be a guideline to be varied when appropriate rather than a mandatory rule. Certes (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)- @Certes: I agree with you that being specific and stating the city would be best. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- If there is no objection, then, I'll get to work on this in the next few days. bd2412 T 02:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Could you just do steps 1-3 for the time being? The broad concept article/set index may be used for the page New York Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with that. If we just change the links to pipe through, and leave them that way for the time being, then there will be no need for a report at all, because we will clearly see new links being made to the base page name. bd2412 T 12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have an objection to BD2412's proposed action and applaud this valiant effort in this regard. Castncoot (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- I object. It's needlessly trivial and counterproductive to pipe a redirect to display as it's target. Pppery (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Normally that is the case, but normally an article will not have several thousand incorrectly targeted links mixed in with tens of thousands of correctly targeted links. If you can provide a better way to find and fix the incorrect links, you are more than welcome to do it. bd2412 T 03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with that. If we just change the links to pipe through, and leave them that way for the time being, then there will be no need for a report at all, because we will clearly see new links being made to the base page name. bd2412 T 12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Could you just do steps 1-3 for the time being? The broad concept article/set index may be used for the page New York Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- If there is no objection, then, I'll get to work on this in the next few days. bd2412 T 02:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Certes: I agree with you that being specific and stating the city would be best. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree otherwise we will have to go through all 10,000 links every once in awhile to see if they are properly disambiguated between "New York State" and "New York City". Clever idea. We might even leave a message there. [[New York State|New York]]<!--Please leave the link as is to insure it remains properly disambiguated-->. We should always use "New York City" for the city. I find about 1 in 10 new links improperly disambiguated in biographies, sometimes it takes a little research to find out which is correct by looking at primary sources like the draft registration or the death index. We should also make an effort at "New York City" to change it to "Manhattan, New York City" you do not want to leave doubt that someone was born on the "Bronx, New York City" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support – @BD2412: As we noted in the original discussion, incoming links must be fixed irrespective of the page title. Your suggestion, if limited to steps 1–3, in effect brings us the possibility to detect ambiguous links to New York automatically. It won't bring the ambiguity to editors' attention as they save their work (only making "New York" a dab page would achieve this) but newly-created links can be patrolled and managed with minimal effort. After the initial robot pass, we shall need a rather large but one-shot manual effort to assess ambiguities. Further patterns may emerge during that work and be added to bot-detected issues. May I suggest that we move the practical discussion on implementation progress to the page I had planned for this purpose? An extra benefit of this work is that we will have even clearer usage statistics for both meanings of "New York" within the Wikipedia corpus. — JFG talk 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I've run across your bot a couple of times now, and while what it is doing is clearly an improvement, the result is still not what I'd call satisfactory. The problem is when someone has written for example "Rochester, New York" and you corrected it to "Rochester, New York." The correct fix per WP:SEAOFBLUE is "Rochester, New York." I realize it's not your job or within the scope of this project to fix these. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is an issue for another day - although it is one that a bot could handle fairly easily. bd2412 T 03:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I am also unclear if you are going to go back next and cleanup your cleanup. You are leaving as of now links to a redirect in articles ?? If I click on New York at Arthur K. Shapiro, it is a redirect. That is not a good thing. Shall I revert, or are you going to fix that once you finish your first run through? Thanks for the work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- My plan for the moment is to do the initial cleanup and then see whether the rate of accumulation of new incorrect links is too high to conveniently address even after the links are restored to the base page name. At that point, I will offer my opinion, and it will be up to the consensus of the community as to how to proceed. bd2412 T 14:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still not clear :) Will the current article New York be changed to New York (state) eventually? If not, the old link at Arthur K. Shapiro was correct. If yes, I am assuming the now-incorrect redirect will go away once you finish ? To avoid having others show up here with the same confusion/question, you might want to add something to your edit summary indicating this is a first pass, the rest will be completed ? Others seeing an incorrect change to an article may just revert ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, the intention of this maneuver is to specifically target incorrect links and has no bearing whatsoever on the name of the article. If I'm misinterpreting that point, then I would oppose this maneuver. Castncoot (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There is no plan to move the article to New York (state) at present as far as I know, although we will probably revisit this in a year or two, and at that point common sense might prevail and it could be moved. In the meantime the links could be reverted, but I woudln't have thought it is essential or pressing. Links to redirects are not forbidden or discouraged as far as I'm aware, and don't do any real harm for readers. — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- The piped link through a redirect is not incorrect, per WP:NOTBROKEN. And as I mentioned somewhere above, direct links to a primary topic are commonly changed so that they go through the redirect, to protect them from future title changes and/or to improve finding the primary topic through search. So, the old link was correct, but the new one is better :-) Diego (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely ridiculous! There is no sane reason to make a wholesale change of wikilinks so that they end up as redirects. I despise redirects. Despite whoever wrote WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects are sloppy and ugly. NOTBROKEN should also mention that if a non-redirect is working, it shouldn't be messed with. Don't break something to fix something else. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Nricardo: Are you volunteering to fix the thousands of link intended for New York City but currently pointed to New York? We'd be glad to have the help. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- There can be and are many legitimate contexts where linking through a redirect is desirable and positive — for one example of many, there are occasionally contexts where a disambiguation page is actually the desired link topic (my canonical go-to example, is Sault Ste. Marie, since there are some occasions when a distinction between the one in Ontario vs. the one in Michigan is either unclear or entirely irrelevant to the context of the link) — but since bots will flag direct links to dab pages as things that need to be fixed, linking to it through a redirect has the benefit of preventing that particular link from showing up on the cleanup list. A needed cleanup project like this, where we need to make an effort to sort out links that are going to the intended topic from links which need to be repaired, is another example of where it's useful — this project will have the benefit of vastly reducing the number of links that actually have to be manually inspected, as well as marking the ones that have been inspected so that the next person who comes along wanting to help out doesn't keep tilling the same ground that's already been tilled. You don't have to like redirects, but WP:NOTBROKEN is correct: linking through a redirect still gets you to the right place, if done correctly (i.e. piped rather than leaving the disambiguator visible in the body text) it's invisible to the end reader, there can be and are reasons why it's useful, and there's little to no technical or user benefit in going out of your way to convert a link-through-redirect into a link-through-direct-title just because of some imaginary "avoid redirects" rule. You're free to have your own opinions, sure, but they don't trump Wikipedia policy which says that linking through a redirect is not a problem. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Initial results
At this point I have fixed about 20,000 links. The vast majority of these have been carried out by a bot. Basically, my process is to make a few hundred fixes manually, each time recording the pattern of text that dictate to fix it needed to be made. Once I find a large number of repeating patterns I plug those into the bot and let it automatically replicate those fixes across the 25,000 pages it can grab at a time. Of course the most common patterns are "city name, state name"; tables that have a "state" parameter; and groupings of states or cities together which reveal from the context whether "New York" is being referred to as a state or a city.
My focus has been on fixing the state links, and most of the links that I have found and addressed thus far are intended to point to the state. I would say that about one link in eight is intended for the city of New York. Of those about a third occur in citations which include the city of publication in identifying a book. This may be an example of the tremendous amount of overlinking going on. On a related note, this short article links to "New York" three times in a single paragraph.
Out of these thousands of links. There were also a smattering-perhaps four or five-instances of links intended to go to "New York magazine". I have found some other useful patterns. For example when locations of offices of a firm are referenced they are usually in the context of a group of cities, whereas incorporation is references in the context of the state. Virtually all references and articles about roads and highways are to the state, as are references in articles about weather phenomenon, distribution of wild animals and plants, and geological phenomenon. Also, political references such as identification of national political candidates or of politicians involved in the drafting of key legislation are, obviously, intended for the state. References to the city are most often found in things like airline destinations, places to which actors, musicians, and playwrights moved to develop their career, references in connection with specific institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art or Columbia University. I have seen a surprising number of instances of people piping [[New York]], [[New York]], linking the term in both cases as if they expect the city and state to be the same article. There are even instances of pipe links where the pipe points to "New York" while the visible text reads "New York City". I will have more to report as this project progresses. bd2412 T 04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Amazing the amount of cruft that accumulates. Probably not surprising, though, given the number of different editors with varying levels of experience. If this is just a preliminary fix, I'm OK with it. I don't know much about bots, but it should be simple to detect new links to "New York" in the future and fix them. Peter Flass (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks BD2412. Is there a page where you list the patterns that you have uncovered and that the bot applies? A list of regexps would be awesome, so other contributors could help with suggestions. — JFG talk 15:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- If anyone wants them, I can email you my AWB file containing all the patterns I have put in so far - 260 of them! One reason there are so many is that there is great inconsistency in the layout of commonly used templates. The same template can be used, in different articles, with differing amounts of space or types of spaces around the pipes and equal signs on which they are based. bd2412 T 15:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes please. — JFG talk 18:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I ought to have joined this discussion earlier, rather that wait for hundreds of articles to light up in my watchlist. However, it was a fairly quiet week in my real life, and next week will be busier, so I spent time checking and unwatching those articles. One argument above was that the new links are a bad thing because they are redirects, the riposte being that they are not broken part of the encyclopedia, so don't fix them. But, what was more typical on my watchlist deluge was places that were formerly in Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York and are now in Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York (state). Difficult for me to see that the old New York was a broken thing, and especially difficult to see that it has now been made better, in those hundreds of NYC locations. Perhaps I am failing to see an important point. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem was that up to 5% pointed to the wrong entity, state vs. city. This was we can see which ones have been vetted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- At this point in my repair process, I'd put it at 12 to 15%. I would note, by the way, that my work to this point has given me a sense that the state may have a stronger claim to being the primary topic than I would have originally thought. In terms of long term historical significance, many articles indicate that the state as a political unit played a vital political role in the formation of the United States. bd2412 T 19:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is something I've been contemplating regarding this issue. We aren't really thinking about the comma convention when referring to US cities. When we write, say, "Rochester, New York", the "New York" in that construct refers to the state, not the city (and that's true for the city's boroughs, too). That would apply to every use of the comma convention regarding every city, town, village, or hamlet in the state, in every bit of written material in the English language. I think it's more evidence that there may not be a primary topic outright. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see. As an old history buff that's how I've long seen it. As a Manhattanite I'm watching mostly NYC articles despite knowing the rest of the state is also important. More relevant here, now I see that the right answer for me is to repair those (state) links that are wrong, as they arise. Will do, so far as time allows. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- At this point in my repair process, I'd put it at 12 to 15%. I would note, by the way, that my work to this point has given me a sense that the state may have a stronger claim to being the primary topic than I would have originally thought. In terms of long term historical significance, many articles indicate that the state as a political unit played a vital political role in the formation of the United States. bd2412 T 19:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I am not going to pretend I have read all of the above, or that I understand all the nuances of this debate, but something that has really bugged me for a long time is that it seems to me that the vast majority of references to "New York" mean "New York city" and that therefore, the relevant pages should be "New York" (for New York city, per WP:COMMONNAME) and New York (state) for the state. Or at the very least, that "New York" be a redirect to "New York City". Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Sigh) Exactly. Put 2017 or 2022 in your diary. We'll sort it out then. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would hardly say that the "vast majority" of references are for the city. Over the course of this project so far (about 25,000 links done), around 12-15% are intended to refer to the city. It is worth noting that every reference to New York participating in a federal election, as a source of state laws, and as a place through which highways pass, is to the state. Also, every reference to New York in connection with any of the literally hundreds of cities, towns, and villages in New York outside of the city is also to the state. bd2412 T 23:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Sigh) Exactly. Put 2017 or 2022 in your diary. We'll sort it out then. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes BD2412, you are correct that "every reference to New York in connection with any of the literally hundreds of [localities] outside of the city is also to the state", but that's because the qualifier state is redundant in such contexts. You don't need to say "Albany, New York State" because "Albany, New York" is sufficient. However, I believe that standalone references to the term "New York" refer overwhelmingly to the city, which is why I think the city should be the primary topic, or at least, that "New York" be a redirect to "New York City". Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Outside of references to other cities, there are thousands of references indicating that someone was a "Senator from New York", "Governor of New York", some kind of "delegate from New York", all intending the state. We also have thousands of articles indicating that roads cross state lines "into New York", that rock formations stretch from New York into other states, that plants and animals range into New York, that rivers have their source in New York, and that mountains are found in New York. bd2412 T 14:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ehich just seems to be more evidence that without context the words "New York" are ambiguous on their own and there is no primary topic. Which is what I've said before. I just want to be on record as being okay with "New York" pointing to the disambiguation page, but being utterly opposed to any course of action that would point it to the city, or, especially, moving the city article from New York City, with is a title that is common and unambiguous. oknazevad (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Outside of references to other cities, there are thousands of references indicating that someone was a "Senator from New York", "Governor of New York", some kind of "delegate from New York", all intending the state. We also have thousands of articles indicating that roads cross state lines "into New York", that rock formations stretch from New York into other states, that plants and animals range into New York, that rivers have their source in New York, and that mountains are found in New York. bd2412 T 14:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes BD2412, you are correct that "every reference to New York in connection with any of the literally hundreds of [localities] outside of the city is also to the state", but that's because the qualifier state is redundant in such contexts. You don't need to say "Albany, New York State" because "Albany, New York" is sufficient. However, I believe that standalone references to the term "New York" refer overwhelmingly to the city, which is why I think the city should be the primary topic, or at least, that "New York" be a redirect to "New York City". Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like this answers at least the PT question. Peter Flass (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is not the discussion about that issue. This is the discussion about how to fix links that currently point to the incorrect target. bd2412 T 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- The PT issue was answered in the first RM and has been several times since, if consensus would only be assessed according to the guidelines. But obviously, those guidelines aren't clear enough. Sorry, still off-topic. We may have made this discussion 0.001% messier than it already was. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say that I saw this in the watchlist - it's a bit of an odd project but it looks worthwhile, and I'm glad it's being done. Having the added redirect is a little unorthodox but solves the problem. Well done, all. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Cleanup project progress
I am not sure if there is a way to determine the number of links pointing directly to New York, and not through any redirects. At the moment, This link shows 116629 backlinks to New York (about 4,000 fewer than when this project started), and This link shows 43289 backlinks to New York (state), which is about 21,000 more than when this project started. I believe the 4,000 reduction in links to New York reflects the number of links changed to point to New York City (or, on a few occasions, removed from the article altogether as overlinking). bd2412 T 00:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- We can count them by tweaking the "What links here" search and scrolling by batches of 5,000 articles until we reach the last page of results, then narrowing it down to 1,000 then 100. Right now I count about 26'500 direct links to New York from article space only. — JFG talk 07:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
As of now, AWB pulls 24,588 direct links to New York. bd2412 T 19:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Is your bot done with the pattern replacements? If yes, how can we help for the next steps? Manual checking of 25,000 links is feasible in a few days with a team of 10 AWB-assisted editors. Shall we divide the job by initial letters? — JFG talk 19:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking something like that. I'm running the bot one more time to see if any of the pattern fixes have been missed. I note that there are occasional references to the "New York metropolitan area" and "New York Harbor", which should probably point to New York metropolitan area and New York Harbor, but which I have heretofore piped to New York City. At some point, I'll go back and fix those too. As the easy fixes dwindle, there are harder questions. There are many instances of short articles that say someone was "born in New York" or "died in New York" without giving further context or guidance to determine which New York is meant. bd2412 T 19:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I just did a quick AWB pass to get a feel for the current state of affairs. Most links are easy to decide. I fixed 34 to the city and 17 to the state. I'm sure we can find more patterns before going manual. — JFG talk 20:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. It will also be useful to use the list comparer function to isolate out links to New York occurring in proximity to links to entities like Columbia University, United Nations, or even Niagara Falls. bd2412 T 21:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I just did a quick AWB pass to get a feel for the current state of affairs. Most links are easy to decide. I fixed 34 to the city and 17 to the state. I'm sure we can find more patterns before going manual. — JFG talk 20:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking something like that. I'm running the bot one more time to see if any of the pattern fixes have been missed. I note that there are occasional references to the "New York metropolitan area" and "New York Harbor", which should probably point to New York metropolitan area and New York Harbor, but which I have heretofore piped to New York City. At some point, I'll go back and fix those too. As the easy fixes dwindle, there are harder questions. There are many instances of short articles that say someone was "born in New York" or "died in New York" without giving further context or guidance to determine which New York is meant. bd2412 T 19:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Removal of waterfall image from panoramas
I want to remove File:Niagra Falls-wide image-NPS.jpg from the gallery of panoramas. While in the panorama format, it is pixelated because it is expanded beyond its limit of resolution and looks like a pointillist painting. The image is 960 × 148 and being displayed at 1,400. I deleted it but it was restored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree or disagree?
- Why not just display it at the correct size? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's quite an exaggeration to liken it to a pointillist painting. You may be confusing the mist with pixellation. It's just fine the way it has been and accomplishes its intended scale for the page. Castncoot (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- It seems like a bad idea to display an image bigger than its size, but I can't find any policy or guideline. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. It does seem wrong to simply remove the image. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for updating the sizing, Kendall-K1. This is what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) should have done, rather than drastically wiping out an image without proposing a solution or replacement. Castncoot (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- It seems like a bad idea to display an image bigger than its size, but I can't find any policy or guideline. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. It does seem wrong to simply remove the image. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's quite an exaggeration to liken it to a pointillist painting. You may be confusing the mist with pixellation. It's just fine the way it has been and accomplishes its intended scale for the page. Castncoot (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation: The city so nice they named it thrice
Remember, there are three New Yorks. The city so nice they named it "thrice". There is the state, the city, and the county. "New York" is also used for Manhattan which is the same as New York County, New York. A link may say that someone was born in New York, meaning the city, but we should disambiguate it further and say "Manhattan, New York City" so people are not left with the impression that the person could have been born on Staten Island (Richmond County, New York). The other four counties became boroughs of New York City in 1898. Many entries that are New York City, New York should be changed to "Manhattan, New York City" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Overkill to change if it just read, "New York City", but I agree that changing "New York City, New York", or "New York, New York" to "Manhattan, New York City" would be a good idea; except in quoting addresses, where "New York, NY" is the standard disambiguation. Castncoot (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- As someone raised American and has lived in mid-state NY as well as several major cities with separate boroughs, I can say unequivocally that the Brooklyn/Manhattan/Queens/Staten/etc. distinction is something only people who live in NYC care about. The rest of the country and world can't even place the other NYC boroughs on a map. Also, no other city link is redirected to specific boroughs/municipalities – not London or Chicago or Los Angeles. The region administrated by a mayor seems to be last stop for specificity for general location links. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
When we say Sydney we generally mean more than the area officially known as the City of Sydney. To most of the world, the city known as Sydney includes the whole City of Parramatta, just as London includes the City of Westminster. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- The difference is that the City of Westminster is a London Borough (despite the "City" in its name), making it fully under the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. It's as much a part of London as Brooklyn is a part of NYC. The City of London is also a London Borough (sort of), just as New York County (aka Manhattan) is also a NYC borough. The difference with Sydney, as far as I know, is that there's no "Greater Sydney Authority". So it's not quite wholly analogous. But that's true of any major city. Each is unique, and has its own peculiarities that prevent blanket statements about demonyms and such. oknazevad (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Different cities adopt different approaches, and only a minority of our readers will be familiar with the niceties that are understood by (dare I say it) New Yorkers. It's good to dispel their (our) ignorance. It's just that the article title is not an effective place to do it. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. You've got it all backwards as to what is the "local" rule.
- It you look at the actual de facto situation with city names (and I have a fairly good grasp of this having edited for about 11 years), Wikipedia always defers to domestic common usage to the extent necessary to resolve a city name as pointing to a coherent topic. With respect to the vast majority of global cities, like Paris, Rome, Zurich, New York, Los Angeles, etc., the standard domestic common usage is that the name of the city refers to that portion of the metropolitan area governed by the legal entity itself (the French commune, the Italian comuna, the Swiss stadt, the American city, etc.) and then there are separate terms referring to region, metropolitan area, or both. For example, Americans distinguish between the City of Los Angeles (the largest and most populous of 88 cities within the County of Los Angeles), the Los Angeles metropolitan area, also known as the Southland (Los Angeles and Orange counties) and the even more gigantic Greater Los Angeles Area (five counties).
- The outliers are England and Australia, due to their failure to force amalgamation of original city entities with surrounding city entities which would now be deemed inner suburbs of the larger metropolitan areas, as occurred in the majority of industrialized countries. Thus, Wikipedia doesn't use "London" to refer to the "City of London" nor "Sydney" to refer to the "City of Sydney."
- That's why I'm beginning to wonder if you have traveled overseas, especially to the United States. This is something that experienced travelers know about (if they have traveled to/from those outliers) because it is necessary to understand this issue in order to plan a trip intelligently. For example, an American's trip to "London" would be very short if they were thinking of the City of London, while an Australian's trip to "Toronto" would be quite comprehensive. That's why it sounds so odd to Americans to hear you to referring to the situation in NYC as a local rule; it's actually the majority rule worldwide. (I should note in closing that I have actually visited every city that I just named.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is irrelevant, but just to put your mind at rest, I have also visited each of the cities you name. I don't claim to be much of a tourist, I travel for business or to attend particular events and meet people I know. So it is something of a fluke perhaps, but you just happen to have picked only cities that I've visited over the years. And there are others. I'm curious as to what (if anything) you think that shows.
- Disagree that Wikipedia always defers to domestic common usage to the extent necessary to resolve a city name as pointing to a coherent topic (your emphasis) but if you have evidence of this, it seems it might be relevant (my main reservation is I'm not sure exactly what it means). I think Wikipedia looks at all available reliable sources, local and otherwise. In the case of a little village, the sources tend to be predominantly local, but in the case of a global city such as New York, the sources tend to be global. And there is a continuum between these extremes. Andrewa (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- You say you are curious as to what you think that shows? Unfortunately, it shows that you were not paying attention to something that should have been obvious when you visited those cities. It is very difficult to plan a visit to a strange city without first trying to understand the actual situation on the ground. The only exceptions would be if you did very short in-and-out visits for specific business purposes (i.e., going from the airport to a hotel to a convention center, then back to the hotel and then back to the airport), or you always take tours entirely planned from start to finish by others (e.g., escorted motorcoach tours) rather than planning your own travel.
- You attempt to disclaim interest in what is correct, and then say you are interested in current usage. I already pointed out exactly what that current usage is. That usage is something you should have noticed either at the time you visited them, or at this time by simply glancing at the Wikipedia articles about the cities I referred to.
- Another point is that it is often impossible to reconcile diverse global usages. For example, many Latin Americans consider it offensive that citizens of the United States refer to themselves as Americans. We use American anyway on Wikipedia because that is the common usage in the English language. Similarly, the de facto majority rule for cities large and small appears to be that the name refers to what the locals think it is (that's what I meant by domestic common usage), which is nearly always the legal entity first, followed by qualifiers if necessary like "metropolitan area" to refer to the larger built-up agglomeration. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Don't you think you are making this a bit personal? Your speculation on my travels having failed miserably, you now want to play twenty questions. You do make some relevant points, but they're so tangled in other stuff that sorting them out seems pointless to me, and will just encourage your games.
- Ask a relevant question on the topic, and I'll answer it. Always glad to. Bear in mind that I'm not a reliable source (and neither are you, as far as I know). Andrewa (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your response was anything but direct---and you accuse me of playing games? I must reluctantly concur with User:Castncoot's point that you should strongly consider deferring to editors who already understand the underlying subject---namely, human geography. It's like how I would defer to the math and physics experts when it comes to the article on the mathematics of general relativity. They understand tensors far better than I ever will.
- For the third time, I will point this out again. I'll make it very simple. Try to respond this time.
- First. The domestic common usage (city name normally refers to city proper and not metro area) is something you should have noticed at the time you visited those cities. Did you or did you not notice it? Or in other words, when you were there, were you paying attention to how locals talk and write about their cities? Yes or no.
- Second. Did you review all the Wikipedia articles for all the cities I mentioned above? Except for the two outliers noted, isn't it true that they reflect a common pattern in which the article focuses on the city proper and not the larger metro area around it? --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- That seems to be four questions. The answers to the first two are no and yes, respectively. The answers to the second two are no and no.
- And now I have one for you. Will you defer to me on matters of logic? Yes or no.
- And a second question. The cities in question are Paris, Rome, Zurich, New York, Los Angeles, Sydney, and London. One of those wikilinks is different to all of the others. Can you see which one? Yes or no. Here is a hint. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- But the point is that it is pretty global not to refer to people from adjoining states as "New Yorkers", and to do such is an error. PS, is it just me, or was this placed in the wrong section; it reads like it should be up in the discussion above. I'm okay with moving it. oknazevad (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- So you say. But the question isn't whether it's correct or an error according to you or even any authority. The question is simply whether it's current usage. If I describe a member of a dormitory suburb of NYC as a New Yorker, or otherwise imply that they live in New York, would most of the world have any problem understanding me? We need to find out. I think there is now no doubt that New-York-etc-ers would completely misunderstand. They would look at (me) as if (I) had three heads. But is this true of the rest of the world? Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- PS I think it's more trouble than it's worth to move these comments, but I'm OK to put a pointer here to a new section or subsection in a more logical place. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's where I'm thinking we have our communication issue may stem from. While looking at the article on Sydney (both metropolis as a whole and the City of Sydney), I was reminded that in Australian usage "suburb" is used much as the word "neighborhood" is in American usage, whereas "suburb" in American usage denotes a town/viilage/etc. near a major city but with a totally separate local municipal government. So there's a difference in connotation that may be lost; in American usage suburbs are separate, not part of the city. They're near, not in the city. And that's not just a local to NYC thing, but part of American English as a whole. In short. It's an WP:ENGVAR thing. Of course, per WP:TIES, American English should be used for the articles regarding New York City and the state. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's such an interesting observation it probably deserves its own section. A much more applicable policy is WP:TITLEVAR. I think we may just have stumbled onto a valid argument supporting primacy of NYS. That's not the end of the story, of course, we need to consider all arguments. But it's definitely interesting. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- See #WP:TITLEVAR, User:Oknazevad (and anyone else interested) and thanks for the discussion, that is real progress IMO (embarrassed as I am, see that section). Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's where I'm thinking we have our communication issue may stem from. While looking at the article on Sydney (both metropolis as a whole and the City of Sydney), I was reminded that in Australian usage "suburb" is used much as the word "neighborhood" is in American usage, whereas "suburb" in American usage denotes a town/viilage/etc. near a major city but with a totally separate local municipal government. So there's a difference in connotation that may be lost; in American usage suburbs are separate, not part of the city. They're near, not in the city. And that's not just a local to NYC thing, but part of American English as a whole. In short. It's an WP:ENGVAR thing. Of course, per WP:TIES, American English should be used for the articles regarding New York City and the state. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Different cities adopt different approaches, and only a minority of our readers will be familiar with the niceties that are understood by (dare I say it) New Yorkers. It's good to dispel their (our) ignorance. It's just that the article title is not an effective place to do it. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the idea that American cities are somehow single entities, in a way that British or Australian cities aren't, is a little fanciful. Look at a map of the city of Los Angeles:
It has big holes in it for Beverly Hills and all that sort of thing, as well as a thin bit stretching down to a fatter bit in the far south. And doesn't really correspond to the urban or metro areas, which include loads of other cities that nonetheless regard themselves as somewhat LA (hence the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim). Perhaps I'm misreading the situation, but I'd have thought that in America, as elsewhere, administrative boundaries don't necessarily correspond to what people think of in reality as the city. — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- It depends on the context, to some extent. LA is definitely one of those areas where the city boundaries are less important, in large part because a lot of governance is handled by Los Angeles County, which contains the entirety of the city and all those other places like Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, etc, that are often thought of as "Los Angeles". Miami is in a similar boat. But that's not the case in say, Chicago, where the difference between being in the city proper and being in the Chicagoland metro area is often noted. Someone from the suburbs will say they live by Chicago, but not in Chicago. I think that may have to do with the size and shape of the boundaries (LA proper is oddly shaped, as you note, and Miami proper is rather small). But the distinction is made. oknazevad (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have to beg to differ slightly with Oknazevad on this one. People do care strongly whether a place is in the City of Los Angeles versus merely being in the metropolitan area, as in virtually any other large American city. (The only possible exception is probably Las Vegas, where many visitors actually stay in Paradise, Nevada and never visit the city itself.) A good example is the Los Angeles neighborhood known as Beverly Hills Post Office. If a City of Beverly Hills address were not significantly more prestigious than a City of Los Angeles address, then the USPS could have modified the ZIP Code boundary to match the city boundary a long time ago and avoided all the administrative craziness that results from not having them line up. For example, emergency response to that area is sometimes slightly delayed because emergency dispatchers cannot rely on the ZIP Code of an address as a quick mnemonic to determine whether to dispatch personnel from the City of Beverly Hills or City of Los Angeles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Amakuru, in the U.S., the State (any state) carries a higher-level jurisdictional status than any city or county - and significantly so. I am assuming (and awaiting Andrewa's clarification on this) that this is true in Australia as well. Castncoot (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- What exactly is your question? Andrewa (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Am I to understand from this that people residing in, say, East St Louis, Illinois, Camden, New Jersey, Kansas City, Kansas, Council Bluffs, Iowa, Vancouver, Washington, Jersey City, New Jersey etc, feel no affiliation to the neighbouring big city in another state, even though they're just a short drive away and part of the same urban area? — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- It would also probably help to know what the relevance is of the question. AFAIK both Australia and Wikipedia have yet to ratify the HLJC, so it's not yet in force. Wikipedia might be a lost cause I think, but Australian politics are very interesting at the moment, so you might like to contact Pauline Hanson or failing her Nick Xenophon (and you think you got problems). (;-> Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- re: Amakuru (talk) I'm trying hard not to make any more comments, but... I live near Albany, I worked in Albany for many years, but I don't feel like I live in Albany, or much connection to it. When people ask where I'm from I usually say "near Albany" as a geographic reference, because people might not know where Saratoga Springs is, to say nothing of the town I'm actually from. What does this actually have to do with the question? Peter Flass (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've long since forgotten what the main question we're actually discussing here is to be honest, I'm just chatting at this point, and trying to learn something new about the thought processes of people living near big cities but not in them! My position on the overall subject of primary topic between state and city is well known, and I'll continue pressing for the move subject to normal processes, but otherwise I'm not advocating any particular other course of action here. Others may have a different agenda, I'm not sure on that. — Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- My agenda is also along those lines. I don't think we'll get consensus at this point on anything much, although I'm open to changing my position and am interested in understanding the other side (and otherwise I would not waste time here).
- And I have made enormous progress in understanding the other side, and also in developing my own thoughts. For example, I hadn't thought of Gol Gol, New South Wales as an example of a town that is part of a city that is itself in an adjacent state, despite having spent a few days there just last year. New York is not unique! Or perhaps I should say, not in that sense at least. I'm still not sure that this is at all relevant to the move, but it's very relevant to some of the arguments opposing the move.
- Or perhaps I should say, proposed arguments opposing the move! I have still to find a single valid argument opposing. And I am looking hard!
- And that is actually a danger sign. Am I just allowing myself to be polarised, and am I similarly polarising others?
- I try to always imagine that one of the next generation of Wikipedians might do a PhD based on these discussions, and try to make a favourable impression on them. These pages are all going to be archived I imagine. Who knows, in the year 2525 that archive may be all they know of Andrew Alder. Digital eternity. Scary? Andrewa (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I actually agree that the plain title should point to the disambiguation page and the state get a parenthetical, if only for clarity. But I'm trying to explain to you that in American English people do not refer to residents of adjacent states as New Yorkers. That is all. I've never made a single higher level jurisdiction argument; I have said that separate jurisdictions are recognized. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2016
- Agree with all of this, except I'm puzzled that you think I've ever questioned it. My point is rather that for some and perhaps even most of the rest of the world, it makes sense to talk of residents of some parts of New Jersey as New Yorkers, and no sense at all to call residents of Albany that. Do you disagree? Andrewa (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I actually agree that the plain title should point to the disambiguation page and the state get a parenthetical, if only for clarity. But I'm trying to explain to you that in American English people do not refer to residents of adjacent states as New Yorkers. That is all. I've never made a single higher level jurisdiction argument; I have said that separate jurisdictions are recognized. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2016
- Honestly, I have also yet to get to the heart of why so many people object to the proposed dab page. Reams and reams of text have been written on the matter, but ultimately it boils down to "might as well have one or other topic on the primary page", "New York is higher jurisdiction", or "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I can sort of understand why people would have some of these views, and there is a slight logic to it, even if it isn't backed up by policy or guideline. What I don't understand the strength of feeling attached to them. Terms like "disastrous" and "irreparable harm" were thrown into the mix, and essentially the move request failed because even though the panel could see that the argument in favour was stronger than the argument against, they couldn't get past the solid wall of very strong opposition. If you get any further insight into this, of if anyone else wants to clarify, I'd like to get more understanding. — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've long since forgotten what the main question we're actually discussing here is to be honest, I'm just chatting at this point, and trying to learn something new about the thought processes of people living near big cities but not in them! My position on the overall subject of primary topic between state and city is well known, and I'll continue pressing for the move subject to normal processes, but otherwise I'm not advocating any particular other course of action here. Others may have a different agenda, I'm not sure on that. — Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Amakuru, in the U.S., the State (any state) carries a higher-level jurisdictional status than any city or county - and significantly so. I am assuming (and awaiting Andrewa's clarification on this) that this is true in Australia as well. Castncoot (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have to beg to differ slightly with Oknazevad on this one. People do care strongly whether a place is in the City of Los Angeles versus merely being in the metropolitan area, as in virtually any other large American city. (The only possible exception is probably Las Vegas, where many visitors actually stay in Paradise, Nevada and never visit the city itself.) A good example is the Los Angeles neighborhood known as Beverly Hills Post Office. If a City of Beverly Hills address were not significantly more prestigious than a City of Los Angeles address, then the USPS could have modified the ZIP Code boundary to match the city boundary a long time ago and avoided all the administrative craziness that results from not having them line up. For example, emergency response to that area is sometimes slightly delayed because emergency dispatchers cannot rely on the ZIP Code of an address as a quick mnemonic to determine whether to dispatch personnel from the City of Beverly Hills or City of Los Angeles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the reason for the passion is just a case of ownership. This was put succinctly recently: I request you to please defer to those who actually have topic experience to make the weighty decisions here. [10] Threats to well-established ownership can be a very powerful motivator indeed, and not just in Wikipedia.
I find understanding the panel comments more difficult. I don't want to challenge them, I've consistently said we should have no MR, and that there should be a (reasonable) moratorium on RMs. But I would like to understand.
One has said that the !votes are virtually a tie. But the closing instructions are explicit: !votes that are illogical or not based on policy are to be discarded before assessing consensus. I just can't see how you can do that and come up with a tie! If it said given less weight, I'd still have trouble seeing a tie. But it says discarded.
It seems that this was just a head count. There are many other things I fail to understand in the comments so far, but that's the biggie. If that is what has been done by two of the panel, all of the rest of their comments then make sense.
So that's more food for thought during the moratorium. But I can't see how the consensus guidelines can be made stronger or clearer. They are devastatingly clear already, and far stronger than I would have written them. But perhaps I have a lesson to learn there. Food for thought indeed. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The heading of this section is "Disambiguation: The city so nice they named it thrice". One part of that topic is, how should buildings, parks, and other entities, or persons born, in a specific borough of New York City be located? I believe if someone was born in Staten Island, we should say they were born in Staten Island. If this is right, I believe that if someone was born in Manhattan, we should say they were born in Manhattan. New York City with its multiple boroughs is not entirely unique in this regard. I believe that if someone was born in Van Nuys, we should say they were born in Van Nuys in the San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles, California. However, no special qualifiers should be used for people born in "regular" parts of Los Angeles. I admit that this is inconsistent, treating "regular" parts of Los Angeles as Los Angeles while treating New York County as Manhattan, but that is because there is a Manhattan article, but there is not an article about the "regular" parts of Los Angeles. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The "option" option for HLJC
The underlying, irreconciliable dilemma as I see it here seems to be culturally rooted and has schisms simply too wide and deep to bridge or eliminate. Therefore, just as British English and American English co-exist peacefully in Wikipedia, why not entertain the viable solution of adopting the HLJC as a completely viable option? It appears that there is indeed significant support for HLJC, but that those who oppose it (and support a move) don't want it forced upon them. In other words, we could exercise the option of not mandating it, but making it a legitimate option. This would avoid exerting unintended domino effects upon other articles. I can't see a problem with this. Isn't having more legitimate options better than having fewer? Castncoot (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have replied at Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion#The "option" option. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Because we already discussed doing exactly that, and it indeed did not have "significant support". You may want to try it again at a larger forum like WP:Village pump (policy) and see if it gains traction there.
- But then, we couldn't do that if a twelve years broadly constructed moratorium to discuss anything related to this title is established, right? Diego (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- The reason for not adopting the HLJC is simple. It is not generally applied to any other article but this one (see Lima / Lima Province, Lhasa / Lhasa (prefecture-level city), Leeds / City of Leeds, Honolulu / Honolulu County, Hawaii for other counterexamples). And is in effect a guideline designed specifically to try to support this status quo when no other policy or guideline or policy supports it. The tail wagging the dog effectively. — Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is much truth in what you say, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, this principle is widely used at the town/village level. In New York, for example, there are dozens of towns that contain a "village" of the same name. See, e.g., Alden, New York. We decided years ago to treat the town as the primary topic of the term because it was often impossible to determine whether a reference to someone being "from" the place name intended the town or the village. I would grant, however, that these topics tend to be obscure, so there is little else to go on in making this determination. bd2412 T 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Very interesting! We decided years ago... Can you link to any relevant discussion, either of specific cases or of the principle, or to any naming convention that resulted?
- I had a look at Talk:Alden, New York and Talk:Alden (village), New York... nothing. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- We had a consolidated discussion which is preserved at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/New York villages within towns (the discussion was copied and pasted, relevant history is at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links). As far as I recall, we later applied this to similar situations in New Jersey and Delaware. bd2412 T 18:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, perfect! More light reading for the months or years ahead, but relevant IMO. I had a look for the same sections at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 13#Opening heading and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 13#Strong concerns but it seems the cut-and-paste was done before the archive bot did its thing, so that discussion is not in the normal talk page archive, am I correct?
- And for me it raised another point in the shoulda-thoughta-it direction... I'm not sure whether or not WikiProject Disambiguation were explicitly notified of these discussions. Yes, they should have been tipped off by several automated notifications, and I imagine they were. But then WikiProject New York and WikiProject New York City had the same access to these tools and even listed them on their project pages, but didn't use them and then blamed everyone in sight (self included) for not giving them a manual heads-up as well. So I'm adding WikiProject DAB to my list of heads-ups for next time. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to think that I notified relevant projects, although it was a long time ago. The principle is the most important thing. In some cases, it makes sense to assume that the primary topic is the encompassing geographic jurisdiction. However, a strong case for this is where there are likely to be many links that will otherwise be unsolvable, and where both answers are technically correct. In the case of New York, I think that it is more likely that links will be solvable. bd2412 T 23:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're yourself quite active in WikiProject DAB I gather. It did not occur to me to notify them, despite their banner on the DAB talk page, but the formal RM at #Requested move 19 July 2016 did specifically mention the DAB page so the bots would have have picked it up. I have heard no criticism of the notifications for that latest RM, unlike the previous one, so perhaps we can both take a bow. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to think that I notified relevant projects, although it was a long time ago. The principle is the most important thing. In some cases, it makes sense to assume that the primary topic is the encompassing geographic jurisdiction. However, a strong case for this is where there are likely to be many links that will otherwise be unsolvable, and where both answers are technically correct. In the case of New York, I think that it is more likely that links will be solvable. bd2412 T 23:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- We had a consolidated discussion which is preserved at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/New York villages within towns (the discussion was copied and pasted, relevant history is at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links). As far as I recall, we later applied this to similar situations in New Jersey and Delaware. bd2412 T 18:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, this principle is widely used at the town/village level. In New York, for example, there are dozens of towns that contain a "village" of the same name. See, e.g., Alden, New York. We decided years ago to treat the town as the primary topic of the term because it was often impossible to determine whether a reference to someone being "from" the place name intended the town or the village. I would grant, however, that these topics tend to be obscure, so there is little else to go on in making this determination. bd2412 T 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is much truth in what you say, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- The reason for not adopting the HLJC is simple. It is not generally applied to any other article but this one (see Lima / Lima Province, Lhasa / Lhasa (prefecture-level city), Leeds / City of Leeds, Honolulu / Honolulu County, Hawaii for other counterexamples). And is in effect a guideline designed specifically to try to support this status quo when no other policy or guideline or policy supports it. The tail wagging the dog effectively. — Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- HLJC is dead. It basically claimed that "bigger is better" (direct quote from talk page) because NY state contains all the important things that lie in NYC plus a few more. We need to consider the importance of the region itself rather than the total importance of all things that happen to lie within it. Salzburg (city) is more important than Salzburg (state), and the HLJC talk page contains many other counterexamples. Certes (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- In other words, you and Amakuru both think that the HLJC is a tactic in the NY discussion rather than a serious proposal with any chance of adoption, is that correct?
- If so I agree. Even if it was once a serious proposal (which I'm very much inclined to doubt, we assume good faith but we don't hang on to this assumption in the face of evidence}, to continue to cite a proposal which has not been adopted and which seems to have no chance of adoption (not for the moment at the very least) is not helpful to the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that HLJC is unlikely to be adopted. Identifying an argument against the page move (the state includes the city) helped the discussion but we didn't really need an essay for that. I have no useful insights into other editors' motives for creating or citing HLJC. Certes (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies if I misquoted you, it was a question, and thank you for answering it.
- For my part I do think there are procedural and related behavioural issues, but it's not as clear as I would like and I have not raised any behavioural issue on user talk pages, with the exception of disruption in one instance, and I took that no further. User talk is the first step of course in addressing behaviour. The question I raise here is whether or not current policies/guidelines are adequate, not to seek to sanction any particular user. Specifically, wp:consensus and wp:gaming the system, with the information page at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus also relevant.
- I'm not quite sure which essay you mean. I have written a few... this post is just the latest (sorry). Looking forward to a moratorium, and in some ways the sooner and wider the better! Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- No misquote; no apology needed. I meant essay literally: I was referring to HLJC. Certes (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- There was always a high risk that the HLJC essay would in a sense be a waste of time, in that the concept appeared to be just that. The hope was that it would at least centralise that waste of time and so reduce its repetitiveness! It has IMO succeeded in this, and has even turned up some relevant stuff in addition. You do have to dig a bit to find it. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- No misquote; no apology needed. I meant essay literally: I was referring to HLJC. Certes (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that HLJC is unlikely to be adopted. Identifying an argument against the page move (the state includes the city) helped the discussion but we didn't really need an essay for that. I have no useful insights into other editors' motives for creating or citing HLJC. Certes (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've just copy-pasted below in single brace-brackets, so as not to confuse with the current dialogue on this page, this priceless thread between Andrewa and myself on the Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion page:{
- You seem to be very afraid of allowing this to even be an option. Why is that? (Especially when you were the one who started this essay article, lol!) My desire to build consensus is what in fact inspired me to give this another, fresh look. People supporting a move of "New York" cite as their main reason that the longstanding status quo somehow violates Wikipedia policy of primary topic. (I disagree, but that's not the point here.) Well, if that's really their primary objection, then they shouldn't have any problem at all with a policy that optionally acknowledges the reasonability of NYS being the primary topic for "New York" (and again, read the actual policy proposal on this essay page as written - "may be regarded" - it's actually very softly stated) – while at the same time exerting absolutely no effect on whether Sao Paulo city or state is primary, for example. Again, I want to emphasize the optionality of the concept. Castncoot (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, not very afraid. But it is true that I am opposed to the instruction creep you are proposing.
- As has been pointed out above by Diego, this proposal doesn't add anything helpful. The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed, and it has been attempted in the case of New York, by yourself and a (very) few others, with no success.
- In other cases it has been successfully followed, see #Established use for small towns and villages above.
- But I commend your desire to build consensus. My suggestion would be, rather than this rather vague and confusing proposal, see what the successful arguments were for the small towns and villages in the archived discussions linked to above. Then propose something along those lines. Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, good. Glad that you now newly acknowledge that "The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed,..." Now it will be quoted as a nod toward a reasonable guideline usable toward building consensus in arguments going forward. Castncoot (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
} Castncoot (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Another way forward
From #Opinions above:
*:::::::::::::::No. I have had nothing to do with that essay, it has to do with the City being currently covered in the New York topic article (the article whose page we are on) for multiple factual reasons. Wikipedia has broad overview articles and more specific article, the current New York article gives us that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC) [11]
This to me suggests another way forward, and again I don't know why I did not think of it before as it's not the first time that someone has suggested that the article currently at New York already covers the city (and that's an understatement, there have been a great many such claims).
If the article at New York already covers the city as well as the state, shouldn't the lede reflect this scope? It currently [12] reads New York is a state in the Northeastern United States and is the 27th-most extensive, fourth-most populous, and seventh-most densely populated U.S. state. New York is bordered by New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the south and Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont to the east... with New York bolded in the first sentence per the MOS (I have removed other formatting).
The second paragraph then reads With an estimated population of 8.55 million in 2015,[8] New York City is the most populous city in the United States and the premier gateway for legal immigration to the United States... but without bolding of New York City... again per the MOS I would suggest, I thought of bolding it but that doesn't really work as there's a separate article on New York City.
Shouldn't there be a first paragraph before both of these, setting out the real scope of the article, if it includes both the state and the city?
If we could get consensus to add this first paragraph, then I think all the problems would go away. It would require some reworking of the article, but that would be nothing compared to the link-fixing exercise already under way (and which would be unaffected), and nothing particularly urgent.
Comments? Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, in fact the way it is now is just purrrrfect. New York describes the state, but the second para gives DUE WEIGHT to NYC. That's why it's time to close this welcome-way-overstayed discussion and MR and place a nice long, several-year moratorium already. Castncoot (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- That seems to make no sense at all, it gives undue weight to the state, surely?
- I suppose that we could reorder the paragraphs, and put the city first. That would work, but not as well IMO.
- Agree that closing the move is overdue. Not quite sure what to do about it.
- Please try to respect the stringing convention. Your continued use of excessive indentation is disruptive, and has been previously raised on your talk page. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think we should move this article to New York State and move the draft at Draft:New York to here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- That might eventually have much the same effect, but possibly the article histories are better preserved by this proposal.
- PS There is currently no MR, and hopefully will not be. It does probably depend on the details of the close, but I'd prefer not to have one regardless.
- I'm very glad you linked to WP:UNDUE, which reads in part Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.... That is the issue exactly, although I had not thought of it in quite those terms, or related it quite so closely to WP:POV, the policy of which WP:UNDUE is part.
- (I said MR, I meant RM.) Your stringing convention is unconventional, chock full of short paras, and I personally find it very confusing. It's time for the panel, or one member of the panel on behalf of the overall panel, to close this RM for no consensus to move, and to end this state of indefinitely suspended animation for all of us. The panel has already weighed in and two of its three members ultimately found no consensus to move. We're at the endgame now. The game was waged fairly and squarely. A moratorium furthermore needs to be instituted upon any "New York"-related move discussion or aspect thereof intended to influence such a discussion (in any direction). I would hope that the move-support side will just accept their failure to build consensus to move, but themselves move on and accept an olive branch, rather than kicking and screaming to keep the lid pried open. It's time to close this excessively long and protracted RM for no consensus to move, and ASAP, please. Castncoot (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's not my stringing convention. WP:THREAD reads in part Each colon (or asterisk) represents one level of indentation. Not sure what you mean by unconventional, similar conventions exist all over the Internet... most mail servers adopt one when they include the original text in a reply, for example. However, in your first post to this section, you went straight to two levels. Is there any reason for this?
- I'm sorry you find my short paragraphs confusing. I find your long ones difficult to follow. I think we just have to live with this, but I'm very interested in other views as to which is preferable.
- Agree that a close is overdue, as I said above. But the only kicking and screaming I've seen has been... well, do I need to say it?
- Same difference, as they say. The proposal, whether you realize it or not, is not only absurdly out of this world but also a sham, being the equivalent of a move. Moving one's left hand to the left from a clasped position while holding the right one still is the same as moving one's right hand to the right while holding the left one still. So instead of moving the title, now that you seem to realize that this is no longer on the table, you're proposing moving the content of the lede to achieve the exact same effect. Sorry, nobody's going to fall for such a ploy. But thanks for alerting people to this "proposal", as it'll now need to be watched for in the umbrella moratorium as well. Castncoot (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a sham. Even if it fails to gain significant support, it will at least explore some of the claims made by opponents of the move, and in particular that the current New York article gives us something to do with the City being currently covered in the New York topic article (see the top of this section). This section has already taught me a lot, and I'm hopeful of learning more.
- My motives are mainly to improve Wikipedia (and to work within policies and guidelines to do so), but another reason I contribute to Wikipedia is that I learn myself in the process. I admit I am puzzled by yours. You seem passionately determined to impose a local dialect. Your only hope of doing this is to avoid consensus, but this has worked remarkably well. And of course a no consensus close and a moratorium both represent further success. But do you really think it will work forever? What will you have achieved?
- The problem we face can be solved in two ways. It can be partly solved by changing our naming conventions to allow this dialect to be used in preference to general common usage. That would not be a major change, it would merely mean extending WP:ENGVAR and/or WP:TITLEVAR to clearly cover this case. It is currently borderline at best.
- A better way, IMO, is to change the article structure so that the article at New York does cover what most of the world means by New York. I have only just realised, prompted by the comments quoted at the top of this section, that this again can be achieved in two ways, both of which seem legitimate. These comments also suggested to me that the changes needed for this second solution, of matching the scope to the title rather than the other way around, should not be difficult or offensive to the oppose camp (or team as you have called them). You seem to disagree with that! But do you see how I could take that meaning, and seen it as offering a hope of consensus?
Just in case people are wondering why user:Castncoot is so upset, I'm wondering too, but have no fear that I am about to do anything rash! It seemed a logical way forward to me, but as nobody has supported the idea, nothing will happen. I hope this is not just the result of some not altogether flattering posts above!
It does IMO show that the oppose side (or team as Castncoot said) is not being terribly logical... if further evidence were needed. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Links here
Now nearly all links directly to this article are in the talk namespace and nearly all links from the article namespace are from a re-direct. Will this page be moved soon?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please see the (volumous) above discussion. There doesn't appear to be any move likely soon, but the link changes are being done as part of an effort to make sure the links are pointing at the right article (i.e. making sure that links to the city are pointing at the city, not the state). In the long run I'm not personally sure that lining to a redirect while piping to the actual article title is a good idea, but it is helping to ensure that links are pointing to the intended target. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it was just meant to be a short term solution. In the long term it is envisioned that the draft at Draft:New York will be moved here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for such a move. oknazevad (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's an exercise in swamp-draining. Once the swamp is drained (i.e., incorrect links are fixed), then we'll decide what to do. There is no great rush (and, I think, some reason to pause for at least a number of months, or longer, after the last process). bd2412 T 19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think it was just meant to be a short term solution. In the long term it is envisioned that the draft at Draft:New York will be moved here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)