:::::Agree that if Newyorkbrad were to withdraw their close then that might open a new possibility. But I said ''might'', as it would be unprecedented as far as I can see, and has a couple of other more serious drawbacks. There is a question in my mind as to whether a new closer (panel or otherwise) would take the subsequent RfC into account, they might I suppose take it as clarifying the merits of some of the arguments and !votes that they were assessing. Taking up the subsequent suggestion that ''New York'' become a [[WP:primary redirect|primary redirect]] would be even more doubtful, I can't see how they could accommodate that at all, and I think it is at least as important as the RfC. I watch with interest. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 12:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::Agree that if Newyorkbrad were to withdraw their close then that might open a new possibility. But I said ''might'', as it would be unprecedented as far as I can see, and has a couple of other more serious drawbacks. There is a question in my mind as to whether a new closer (panel or otherwise) would take the subsequent RfC into account, they might I suppose take it as clarifying the merits of some of the arguments and !votes that they were assessing. Taking up the subsequent suggestion that ''New York'' become a [[WP:primary redirect|primary redirect]] would be even more doubtful, I can't see how they could accommodate that at all, and I think it is at least as important as the RfC. I watch with interest. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 12:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::To briefly review the bidding here, three editors were asked to close the RM discussion. I was asked to be one of them, made sure there were no objections to my doing so, and agreed. When it was time for the closing, I reviewed all the RM comments and arguments, and concluded there was no consensus either for or against a move, and explained why. In response to subsequent questions, I amplified my thinking, albeit perhaps not to some people's satisfaction. The second closer, [[User:Niceguyedc|Niceguyedc]], disagreed with me and, based on his evaluation of the strength of the arguments, thought there was a consensus to move. The third closer, {[[User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise|Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise]], though he personally thought the move-supporters have the better of the arguments, ultimately concluded that there was no consensus. </br>
::::::With two of three closers finding no consensus, it was apparent to me that the overall result was "no consensus" also. That said, I said I would be glad to participate in further deliberations if the other closers thought it would be helpful. However, Niceguyedc seemed be on a wikibreak (which is continuing; his last edit was almost three months ago). Fut.Perf. remains an active editor and administrator; he's been pinged to these discussions several times, but seems not to have anything further to add. </br>
::::::At that point, I hadn't planned to say anything else, but in late September, a month or so after the original close process, I was repeatedly pinged to the RM closure page and I was implored to post some sort of a closing notice to put an end to any uncertainty over the result. I complied with the result and formally closed the RM as no consensus. </br>
::::::Now I am being told by another editor, a month later, that I should ''not'' have closed the RM after all and I am being asked to withdraw the closure so that the closing process can start all over again. After the time and effort I have expended on this entire situation, I have no reason to change my opinion, and I certainly have no desire to compound the morass of procedural nonsense that is being conjured up over what remains a minor matter. The closure of "no consensus either for or against a move", accordingly, stands. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New York (state) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
In the early days of Wikipedia, this article was simply titled "New York", like other U.S. states. Due to the potential confusion with New York City, there have been many debates over the appropriate titles. In July 2017, a widely-supported community consensus was reached to rename this article "New York (state)", and to make "New York" a disambiguation page which allows the reader to pick the article on the state, the city, or a related topic. Other arrangements had been proposed, e.g. calling this "New York State" or "State of New York", or having "New York" redirect to New York City. Before the move, more than 75,000 ambiguous links to "New York" were checked and pointed to the appropriate destination, mostly New York (state), New York City, and occasionally other uses such as New York (magazine). This situation had grown out of 15 years of ambiguity on the meaning of "New York", and is now fully resolved.
Historical discussions took place in Oct–Nov 2004, Feb 2005, Feb–Sep 2005, Mar–Aug 2008, Oct–Nov 2010, Aug 2011, Jan 2013 and Jul 2013. In June-July 2016, the article was moved to "New York (state)", but this decision was overturned at move review. Then a more detailed July 2016 move request was closed as no consensus. A subsequent August 2016 RFC reached consensus that the state of New York is not the primary topic for the term "New York", advising further discussions. In October 2016, the status quo outcome of the July discussion was endorsed at move review. Finally, after a drafting debate and a renewed move request, the state article was moved to "New York (state)" on July 19, 2017, and "New York" now holds the disambiguation page. An additional RM was held in Jan 2023 attempting to move the page to "New York State", but was closed unsuccessfully after near-unanimous opposition.
Was Manhattan/New York City really bought for a very small amount of currency (be it $24, one string of wampum, etc.)?
No. Charles Gehring, Director of the New Netherland Project, explains this myth in a video (skip ahead to 3:03) by the New York State Museum. In it, he says, "This is one of the biggest myths ... pure fabrication. It says in the records that it was 60 guilders worth of goods. 60 guilders worth of goods would have been a lot of hard goods that the Indians couldn't produce themselves. You couldn't place a price on the ... things that they were unable to make, the things they didn't have the technology for. The $24 figure was attached to the document when it was translated in the 1880s. The translators looked up the rate of exchange at the time and 60 guilders was $24. Nobody has ever even adjusted that for inflation over the years, so you not only have an incorrect rate of exchange, but the whole idea of what 60 guilders would have been worth to the Indians at the time is totally wrong." US$24 in 1880 would be worth $758 today, though Gehring states the rate of exchange was also incorrect.
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.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New York (state) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to proceed with steps 2 and 3 of the proposal, including replacing (correct) links to New York with piped links to New York (state). This is a reasonable and limited exception to WP:NOTBROKEN given the frequency of incorrect links and the difficulty of identifying them without this approach. The benefit to the encyclopedia and its readers of correcting erroneous links clearly outweighs any minor detriments of inserting the redirect. Note that this consensus does not alter the obligations of editors, including bot operators, to verify that the article about the State is indeed the intended target of the link before editing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. bd2412T18:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. bd2412T19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic aside about supreme courts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Off-topic) I have a question for both of you... I live in New South Wales, and if I wikilink to supreme court or Supreme Court I get to the same article, and it doesn't mention the Supreme Court of New South Wales in any way, not even by any of the hatnotes, not even indirectly. As this is the court most often cropping up in local newspapers (and by a long way, one of its divisions tries all major criminal cases, for example), that's a shocking omission IMO, and I'm not quite sure how to fix it. Supreme Court is perhaps a misnomer in this instance, as further appeals are very common in one of its divisions and in theory possible in all of them, but that's what it's called hereabouts, and in NSW it is in a sense supreme, as after you go through all of its applicable divisions you then go outside of NSW... but to a supreme court that is not a Supreme Court in name but a High Court instead. TIA Andrewa (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done thank you. I'd now like to hat this as reason=off-topic discussion but am involved... would someone else like to, or does anyone mind if I do it? Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 specific The 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)[reply]
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. bd2412T12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. bd2412T03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — JFGtalk10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. bd2412T14:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Graham's hierarchy of disagreement Came across this bizarre effort at Henry DeWolf Smyth and wanted to add my voice to those contesting it. Piping a link to a redirect to that same link is of course ridiculous, as the original link was WP:NOTBROKEN. I would, of course, support an effort to identify and fix New Yorks that ought to be New York Citys. Getting there from the present effort would require only—gasp—reading the surrounding context before tinkering with something. I can't believe that the requisite modicum of literacy is too great an ask. I must also dispute the (mis)conception of consensus advanced here and elsewhere by leader of this effort. Consensus measured by a handful of editors' opinions here does not suffice to counter "a lot of WP:NOTBROKEN complaints" dispersed throughout the encyclopedia. And indeed, editors keep showing up here to lodge their disagreement, and when that happens you no longer have even the meager, insufficient consensus you keep citing (circularly) as the reason this is a good idea. Lagrange61301:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lagrange613:TenEleven editors in this discussion have expressed support this effort: myself (User:BD2412), User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), User:Diego Moya, User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:Andrewa, User:Certes, User:Castncoot, User:JFG, User:Kendall-K1, User:Bearcat, and User:Andrew Gray. Prior to your comment, there has been precisely one objection to the links, by User:Nricardo. It is therefore grammatically incorrect for you to say that you want to add your voice to "those" contesting it, because a single objector does not constitute a "those". A consensus of ten to two is conclusive. This would be so even if it were a substantive editing dispute; in this case, for a maintenance task that the reader does not even see, it is overwhelming. For the record, by the way, there have been virtually noWP:NOTBROKEN complaints, because editors generally understand the importance of carrying out this project. The reason that it is necessary to fix all the links is so that each editor working on this project does not waste time revisiting the same false positives. No amount of literacy will prevent an editor from visiting a previously unaddressed page to assess whether it needs fixing. bd2412T01:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Pppery and Pierre cb object, and SandyGeorgia is far from supportive. I get that you're not interested in the perspective of people who disagree with you, but at least acknowledge their existence. Even were it 10–2 instead of 10–4 or 10–5, again, that wouldn't give you some sort of portable consensus that would allow you to overrule WP:BRD when encountering others who don't want this foolishness elsewhere in the encyclopedia. As to process, it would easy enough to set up a subpage to track how far you've gone through the existing correct New Yorks and then a bot to track the new links. That way you'd be sure of complete coverage. But that would require more care and thought than you seem interested in devoting to this little program and would cut against your apparent goal of maximizing your footprint within the encyclopedia, however clumsily. Lagrange61304:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lagrange613:your apparent goal of maximizing your footprint within the encyclopedia, however clumsily – AGF much? BD2412 and others are conducting a much-needed effort to fix tens of thousands of ambiguous links to the term "New York", a strong proportion of which are meant for New York City instead of New York State. We came to this admittedly unusual solution after the community failed to reach consensus on making New York a disambiguation page. So we must disambiguate by piping. This is no personal crusade at all. As long as New York remains entrenched as the state article, the ambiguous links will persist and need constant monitoring for consistency. Piping them may not be elegant but it's effective and harmless. — JFGtalk10:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given Lagrange613's quick devolution into personal attacks, I will disengage from further discussing this matter with him except to point out that we have fixed over ten thousand incorrect links (those that were pointing to New York when they clearly intended to point to New York City, New York (magazine), Province of New York, and a handful of other targets). I will not apologize for employing the methodology that was necessary to find and fix over ten thousand errors. bd2412T12:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the first to round a comment up to a personal attack and use that as a pretext to refuse to engage in an argument you'd lose on the merits. For what it's worth, I think this effort is probably a net improvement to the encyclopedia, but it could have been even better had you not adopted this tactic, which is hardly "necessary" as others and I have explained to you. Your recent descent into edit warring unfortunately validates my conclusion that you're not coming at this in good faith. Kindly self-revert and stop edit warring. Lagrange61301:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously stated, there is a clear consensus for this task. Consensus does not mean unanimity, it means that those who understand the goals and policies at issue have expressed support for the proposed change. I will continue to act in accordance with the established consensus. I gather that you do not understand why it is necessary to do this to insure that all incorrect links are fixed properly, so I would suggest you try doing it your way and you will learn for yourself. Bear in mind, of course, that when we started this task, there were over 75,000 links to fix. bd2412T01:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And a difficult task at that. Definitely a highly significant improvement overall, and selectively targeted to address a very specific issue. Well done! Castncoot (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was also your reply to Pierre cb, that the only possible reason we could disagree with you is that we don't understand why you're doing it. In my experience, such accusations of denseness are often projections. Anyway, whatever you believe the consensus here to be, the consensus at Wikipedia is that edit warring is wrong. Believing that you have consensus on your side is not an excuse for edit warring, even when you are correct (which you are not). Lagrange61301:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No edit warring is going on here. I made an edit pursuant to, and with reference to, the consensus here. You reverted that edit without understanding. I properly reinstated the consensus-based edit with an explanation of the consensus. Apparently, at some point, you reverted this again, and the article got caught by a semi-automated bot process designed to fix hundreds of links like this without regard to the article they occur in. Reading anything more than that into this is incorrect. bd2412T02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
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. bd2412T04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done and thank you, BD. I stumbled across this debate whilst trying to fix wikilinks but stopped when I saw that a move was being discussed. I had not realised what a large and complex task this was. Certes (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is a ridiculous motion. Redirections are not encourage by Wikipedia and should not be proposed. I do not see the point of changing a perfectly good link with a redirection and I denie that there was here a consensus. This changing must stop! Pierre cb (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand why this is necessary. If you can come up with another way to fix all of the incorrect incoming links (thousands of links pointing to "New York" but intending to point to "New York City", please let us know. Cheers! bd2412T15:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. — JFGtalk15:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. bd2412T15:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. bd2412T19:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. bd2412T23:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, and one that strongly suggests that a DAB or overview article is a better choice than the NYC article for the base name. But there still seems to be no valid reason for the status quo. None whatsoever. (Sigh again) Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. bd2412T14:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is not the discussion about that issue. This is the discussion about how to fix links that currently point to the incorrect target. bd2412T00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). bd2412T00:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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? — JFGtalk19:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. bd2412T19:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. — JFGtalk20:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My rough estimate at this point is that about 9,500 of the link fixes made in this project to date have been to correct links from New York to New York City. It occurs to me, by the way, that there are a number of links to the state, perhaps in the low hundreds, that really should point to Province of New York, when the subject explicitly precedes statehood. bd2412T03:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, you've found one in one of the articles I wrote.[1] I must have thought "New York" meant the city when I wrote that. How wrong can one be... — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should be tagging links {{dn}} just yet. A better option might be {{clarify}}. If New York is identified as a place of significance in a biography, we might also ask for sourcing. bd2412T19:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but {{dn}} is a handy one-click option offered by the tool I've been using (DisamAssist); this enables a quick marking to revisit such links later. I've added {{clarify}} now where I couldn't determine the correct target and nobody else did it in the meantime. — JFGtalk21:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). bd2412T19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make? If we change all the links and the page is not moved, then we will have fixed the incorrect links and will clearly be able to see new additions. If the page is eventually moved, then the links will already be pointing to the likely move target. bd2412T17:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my view there is no chance of building a better consensus at this time. As you know, I already assess a strong consensus once irrelevant arguments and !votes are discarded, but I am an involved party so that counts as nothing other than to explain my motives. This will come up again, but please only after a reasonable moratorium on RMs. So the sooner this RM is closed and the moratorium begun, the sooner I can get back to other things, and the sooner we can eventually resolve the matter. No consensus is not a good outcome, but if it must must be accepted at this point, then the sooner the better. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a herculean effort. I see that we're down to about 15 thousand pages left. FWIW, here's the pageview analysis. It shows that the city has at least three times the views as the state. But we already knew that PT wasn't decided by the page views criteria. wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A more significant barometer, I think, is that the number of backlinks to "New York" is now down to about 107,800 (though this number will change each time the link is accessed), from the initial 119,000+ at the beginning of this project - meaning that more than 12,000 links have been corrected from "New York" to "New York City" (or, on a handful of occasions, "New York (magazine)", "New York University", "New York Harbor", "Province of New York", "New York metropolitan area", or various specified New York sports teams). bd2412T22:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add, by the way, that the process of fixing these links has uncovered a large number of ambiguous links where it is not at all clear whether the reference is to the city or the state. These links also tend to lack sourcing from which this determination can be made, which is another problem to be tagged. bd2412T03:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar experience on a smaller scale. I looked at many articles but ended up improving very few of them, because most of the links were unclear. I eventually realised that I was probably looking at pages other editors had also tried and failed to fix, as we don't have a way of marking them as already reviewed. Certes (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are still several issues that need to be discussed and resolved in regard to this article and its title, and as a supporter of this New York title being an imprecise title that needs disambiguation, I would like to address an apparent hasty generalization made by one or more fellow page move supporters. It can be summed up in Andrewa's statement back on 6 September in the #Disambiguation: The city so nice they named it thrice section. Andrewa opined: 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." Threats to well-established ownership can be a very powerful motivator indeed...
While I agree that one or two of the 22 objecting editors have exhibited strong and undeniable signs of article ownership as described in the Wikipedia:Ownership of content policy, the vast majority of those opposing the page move should not be seen as "owners" of this page, since their civil attempts to be helpful fall moreso into the Wikipedia:Stewardship part of the policy. I believe that is what most of the editors who continue to try to stop this page move process would mean by the quoted words above. The trick is in how to tell whether an editor is an article steward or someone who would be perceived by others as an article owner. That's not always an easy thing to cipher. And since I'm no "guru" when it comes to this, it would be helpful to me if other editors on both sides of the issues would shed some light on how they can tell if an editor is an owner or one of the stewards of an article. To be clear, on Wikipedia ownership is considered not so good while stewardship is a good thing. I'd just like to be more clear on how to tell the two apart. Paineu/c15:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.
It is a very small number of editors who are exhibiting ownership, and even then not consistently. But the contributions that do attempt ownership are, in my opinion, the very ones that have made the discussion messy, and by this have hindered forming consensus.
Readers Digest once commented the difference between a prejudice and a conviction is you can explain a conviction without getting mad. One of the signs of stewardship rather than ownership might be that you can exercise stewardship without personal attacks. I have only challenged one editor about this on their talk pages, and that is of course the first step in addressing behaviour. So it would be inappropriate to discuss specific contributors here. I will however mention two other examples (without a diff or otherwise identifying the culprit). Firstly I was accused of being an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Secondly, yet another contributor opined To be absolutely blunt, I grow tired of the attitude apparent in your comments that somehow the people that live in the area are ignorant about the true meaning of the name; it is utterly arrogant and insulting. Simple logic dictates that they are more knowledgable about the relationships and details than someone who loves on the other side of the world.
I hope I have not suggested that anyone is ignorant. But both of these posts are suggesting that I am the ignorant one, and be that as it may, this is not the way to discuss things here. Both are varieties both of personal attack and of ownership. They are discussing the contributor, not the contribution, and warning me this is my patch, stay out of it.
If my behaviour has been at fault, again my user talk page is the first stop.
On the other hand, if we can carefully refrain from personal attacks of all sorts, and all (on both sides) be a bit more proactive in raising issues of behaviour on user talk pages where they belong, I think that will greatly enhance the chance of consensus. Which should be everyone's goal. To me the most disappointing aspect of this discussion is the failure of the oppose faction to make any progress that I can see towards a consensus that the New York State article should stay where it is.
That is a sound formula, Andrewa, for telling the difference I think. And those who would drown out any attempts for consensus are, at best, misguided article stewards and, at worst, terribly misguided article owners. That brings up the often subjective term "misguided". There are times when even an article steward may go too far by failing to accept definite improvements of Wikipedia, wanting to maintain the status quo when the status quo, no matter how deeply ingrained it is, must be altered and improved. So far, we have that article stewards are inherently helpful when trying to make other editors understand, while article owners resort to personal attacks, bullying and other disruptive behavior in an effort to get their way. I wonder what, short of a topic ban, editors can do about such ownership behavior? Paineu/c20:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm often appalled at the behaviour that is accepted at Wikipedia. I'm too involved to do anything as an admin here, but if I see anyone accusing another editor of being an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect they are at serious risk of a 24 hour block without further discussion. It is completely unacceptable. Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. This qualifies on all three grounds. ...warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking... The users who have crossed the line here are all old hands. They know the rules.
But, while my raising an issue at WP:ANI got strong consensus that a warning at least was appropriate, that was the end of it. The discussion lapsed to archive after three days, with no closure and no message on the perpetrator's user talk page other than mine. I think that there is a shortage of admins policing behaviour, and confess that I haven't blocked anyone for years, or lurked on ANI. Perhaps that should change. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you say, the editors here are old hands and know pretty much what they can get away with. A brief block would probably be rather enjoyed in the same sense as that of being a martyr of sorts. Even if I were an admin, I wouldn't take the time to block any move opposers, and I even question the use of a topic ban, since that, too, just might backfire. Is it too much to hope that these otherwise sterling editors would see the error of their ways? (I shall not hold even my last breath! :>) Paineu/c01:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My limited experience indicates that blocks are a surprisingly good deterrent. Not sure about topic bans (and one of those was threatened by an admin during the last RM... but never formally requested).
As I said, I'm anything but uninvolved. But perhaps if I help at ANI it will free others who are uninvolved to look at behavioural problems that you or I or others might raise.
I don't think martyrdom is a problem. Admins are very careful not to overstep the mark, and de-sysoping is extremely rare although it does occur and it's definitely available. I think that despite some loud protests from martyrdom candidates, the reputation of admins as a whole is robust, and deservedly so. These martyrdom candidates just call attention to their unsuitability as editors.
The case I was closest to is Viktor van Niekerk who is now blocked indefinitely. His personal attacks on me and others, designed to promote his POV on the best tuning of the ten string guitar (which he plays incredibly well, considered by many the best in the world), were quite distressing and went completely unchecked for a long time. Another contributor he viciously attacked is the author of by far the most popular method for learning the instrument, but that method uses a different tuning in the first stages and many go no further. Being involved I was unable to do as much as I would have liked, and she is no longer a contributor. When the crunch finally came, there was no shortage of evidence, and he saw no reason to retract.
But the result was that we once had arguably both of the two greatest living ten string guitarists as contributors, and now have neither. Had the boundaries been set earlier, might it have been different? We will never know. Andrewa (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: why would an unresolved ANI incident get archived? Is that normal? It seems to me that all of them should be closed in some way another before arcive, even if it's an admin just saying "no further action". — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised, too, but that's what the bot is set up to do. No posts for three days and it's off the list, resolved or no.
Goodness. This still appears to draw the problem of wp:bludgeoning, not by the OP, thank you, who nonetheless raises not really an article issue, per wp:forum, but rather a policy issue. RS encyclopedia and dictionary give New York as a common title/principle name for the state. So, it should not be at all surprising that there are people who think the current and long standing set-up, New York, New York City, or New York City, New York, is fine. What has made this discussion problematic, in my view, is there were a few some who could not accept that those for who it is fine are reasoned persons, not driven by emotion but sure driven by the subjects and sources, they have been involved in and with, and by, yes, perhaps some due deference to the Wikipedian authors of these subjects over the years. For what it's worth, I will again refer to title policy that tells us that debating titles is often unproductive and there many other ways to improve Wikipedia - policy specifically warns, so being shocked now is not an option. (And no Andrewa, you were not described, your arguments were criticized, however.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...your comments express confusion, ignorance of topics in a Dunning-Kruger fashion, and long-winded and nonsensical quibbling...[2] And you now say no Andrewa, you were not described, your arguments were criticized, however...? I think this is splitting hairs. The comment in question was completely uncalled for.
There are many problems with the NY RM saga. In many ways it's a perfect storm. But behaviour is one of them, IMO.
But this is not the place to rediscuss the RM, or to discuss your behaviour (or mine). Taking it to your user talk page. Suggest others interested in this aspect of the discussion follow us there.
As I said in my full comment, my assessment of your arguments in this matter is and was that you base them on appeals to ignorance - that is a critique of your arguments, and whether you agree with that critique or not is not what makes it called for, its still a fair critique of your arguments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several contributors characterised the arguments of others as appeals to ignorance. This claim is also unhelpful, and may also constitute a personal attack unless very carefully worded... perhaps even then. But bringing up the D-K effect is clearly crossing the line, IMO.
But we may be back on-topic here. At least some of these so-called appeals to ignorance were in fact arguments pointing out that not everyone in the world sees the term New York as applying equally or even primarily to the state (as now established by RfC). Those calling them ignorant were in effect saying that it doesn't matter what the world thinks, if New Yorkers want to call the state New York, then anyone who doesn't is ignorant and should submit to re-education.
OK, I've put that in emotive terms! There is a valid argument to be made of that, along the lines of WP:TITLEVAR. One of the problems of the perfect storm to date is that such arguments have been drowned in a sea of rhetoric and what one of the closing panel called hyperbole (and also I will add, of personal attacks).
They need to be given a fair go, if we are to build consensus. But there seems to be (dare I say it) consensus that any consensus will favour a move. That's another factor in the perfect storm. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. People's arguments on the internet, one who now unbelievably claims to 'speak for the world' are most certainly in substance to be rejected, which as the close noted were basically ipsa dixit personal stories, so the close did reject them. As for referring to people as ignorant of this, that is what in substance you did, not I - my argument was that readers are smarter then they were being given credit for, that they have no problem even at the primary level understanding New York City is in New York, like Quebec City is in Quebec, Kuwait City is in Kuwait, etc. -- and some above even expressed their lack of knowledge themselves -- those are appeals to ignorance, and if you make such appeal it is most fair to call the appeal that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the term appeals to ignorance can be justified in that way, but it's probably not a good term to use as it's far too easy to then cross the line to calling those people ignorant which is an insult, and that may be exactly what has happened here.
I am not claiming to speak for the world, and it is yet another personal attack to say that I am (even the term unbelievably is itself a personal attack). I am claiming that the RfC is an indication of how the world sees things (there were many previous indications, but that's now academic).
We don't know whether the closers rejected all such arguments. Hopefully so, there were some on both sides, I thought in fact that almost all of the oppose arguments were of that form! But one closer found valid arguments on both sides, stronger for the move but not strong enough, the second found consensus to move, the third found that the arguments overwhelmingly favoured a move but then also found no consensus. Exactly which arguments were rejected is frustratingly unclear! Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any ignorance in this discussion is based on precisely what you and Andrewa are presently debating. Your examples are unseemly, because they translate globally to "New York City" is in the "United States" (so should "New York City" be renamed to "United States City"?). In other words, they do not apply. There was and is also ignorance to the global arguments in the requested move discussion, and ignorance expressed in regard to the policies and guidelines that were cited by page move supporters – things that were both "ignored" and unattended by move opposers, who didn't express nor cite any guidelines nor policies. Finally, there has been ignorance expressed in regard to the unprecedented and uncertain outcome of this requested move. Opposers, of course, are in complete denial and consider this all "closed". How can that be? We have one closer who is far too close to this issue (with "NY" in their user name, how can this not be so) and was a poor choice to be on the closing panel because of this closeness. And this is the only panel member that contributed after the initial statements. The other two panel members have disappeared from this discussion and have provided no further statements beyond their initial ones. That is not a close, no not really, and anyone who argues that it is a close proposes a deeply ignorant argument. Paineu/c00:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! To both. This is beyond ridiculous, we are not even discussing the same close. There was a close on this page that explicitly rejected the personal stories of the supports. If anyone wants to discuss personal attacks they can do so elsewhere. As for the rest, you really you want rehash the old long ago failed move discussion again, and again, and again. Thanks but, no. And there is nothing to the rest of your premises that elicit agreement. (eg., Quebec City is in Quebec, is not like New York City is in the United States, it is like New York City is in New York) So, this seems done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! right back to you! Of course this seems done to a page move opposer! Big surprise! How done would it be if the single, unqualified panel member had made a Moved decision, instead of the No consensus to move or not move? and the other two panel members had taken a powder? How "done" would it seem to you then? Paineu/c01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ignorance in your examples is grounded in the facts that "Kuwait" is not an imprecise title, nor is "Quebec" an imprecise title. People 'round the world, when they think of "Kuwait" or "Quebec", they think of the country or the province respectively, which is why those article titles have never presented any problem. So the continuing problem with the "New York" title is very different – it is, and always has been, an imprecise title that could apply to the state, or to pizza, or to sports teams or to the city of New York, just to name a few of numerous examples. Imprecise titles, in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, are not to be used to title any article in this encyclopedia. Remove the bias of the opposing arguments and this page would have been moved long ago in a heartbeat, and it definitely should be moved now. Paineu/c02:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come now. There is no ignorance in noting and knowing New York City is in New York and Quebec City is in Quebec. Yes. You just have to get enough people to agree with you that it is so ambiguous, as to need a move. That has not happened because people do not agree, perhaps because they would rather follow RS encyclopedia and dictionary and not silly claims about speaking for the world. As for that move discussion, that has nothing to do with my statement, that failure ended months ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there is plenty of ignorance, bias and obsession in noting and in thinking you know that "New York" is just as precise a title as is "Quebec" or "Kuwait". And your obsession is indeed powerful, which is why it must be opposed by something equally as powerful. In fact, it must be something much more powerful. Opposers in the page move debate (which isn't "ended", by the by, far from it) have 2/3 power, while supporters have only 1/3 power. That's just a relational reality that stems from the fact that supporters work to get this page title moved, while opposers, who work to get this page not moved, also have the power of the "no consensus" decision, which effectively means the same as "not moved" in this case. So move supporters are required to develop a powerful obsession of our own. What should we be obsessed with? Should we become obsessed with moving this page title? Hardly. Oh yes, that is a part of it; however, moving this page title is not what we must become obsessed with. Our obsession that we must develop is one that I have already begun building in myself. As a page mover, I move imprecise titles away from articles on a regular basis. Since becoming involved with this particular page move request, there have been more than a few times that I've come across imprecise titles that I've moved in accordance with consensus, policies and guidelines, and each time I do, I think of this page – an imprecise title that has been the source of trouble for many years and yet is still in place, completely against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My growing obsession, then, is with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Every edit that I've made on Wikipedia, every edit you've made, every edit that every editor on Wikipedia has ever made that has been in adherence to policies and guidelines effectively means nothing – NOTHING – until this imprecise page title, "New York", is moved away from this article. Nothing. My obsession is growing stronger. How is yours doing? Paineu/c05:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't project ignorance, bias, and obsession on others. Just because you claim to have them, others do not. As policy warns, such obsession does not go down well. It's really a bad idea for all and for the pedia to become as obsessed as you claim to be, with capital/bolded letter shouting and your earlier reference to pizza (of all things), and all. You misapprehend. Understanding New York City is in New York is both true and relatively easy. Understanding Quebec City is in Quebec is both true and relatively easy. etc. etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Projecting? More like trying to understand you. You repeatedly (obsessively?) argue that "New York City" is in "New York", which still doesn't answer the question: How can you equate the precise article title, "Quebec", with the imprecise title, "New York"? and why do you keep avoiding that question? This has nothing to do with what is in where – it has to do with the question, "Is 'where' precise or not?" Well, you've gotten us all off-topic (and you've supplied some interesting ideas to say the least), so I am going to try and bring us back to "stewardship vs. ownership". Paineu/c11:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Projecting. There is nothing hard to understand about New York City is in New York, that Quebec City is in Quebec, and that 'precise' is an informed editorial judgement call, not a holy writ in need of capital letter/bolding shouting. I get that you express a desire for absolute iron rule, it's just that it's poor substitute for informed judgement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect, as the only substantive claim that's even forwarded is that people are hopelessly confused between New York City and New York, and that is what supposedly makes it hopelessly ambiguous - if there are some such (as is mostly based upon assumption about those poor soles' utter ignorance) given how easy the concepts are, and how substantively connected in fact, they can easily work it out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the sort of arrogance that routinely derails any rational discussions. It is undeniable that for many millions of people around the world, the term "New York" first and foremost refers to the city. Many may be completely unaware of the existence of the state and such widespread "ignorance" is not something that can be dismissed so casually. older ≠ wiser15:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Needed. It has nothing to do with whatever poor motive you wish to ascribe, and certainly not arrogance. That you are personally convinced of the total widespread lack of facility in English and ignorance is less than useless. These subjects are entirely prosaic and found in standard reference works. If you argue that citation needed rather than ipsa dixit is arrogance, Wikipedia disagrees. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ipsa dixit yourself. I see no rational possibility of interpreting the recently closed RfC as "explicitly rejecting" the claim that the term "New York" is ambiguous. Granted, that was not the specific question asked in the RfC and I may have overstated the RfC conclusion. However, the closer's conclusion states Overall, consensus indicates that New York State is not the primary topic for the title "New York", which reasonable implies there is some question as to what the primary topic of the term is or whether there is any primary topic at all -- which goes to the very heart of ambiguity regarding the term. older ≠ wiser17:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, did you not hear what I said? It explicitly rejected the ipsa dixit you offered calling them "personal observations". That RfC close specifically found that much more discussion is needed to decide any edit -- it is consensus on Wikipedia that future edits and past-claims are under revision, and emendation, questions for proof, sources, etc., in future discussions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it was rejected was at least as much if not more of an overstatement that I made. The conclusion states: The latter point [that the city is much better known than the state on a global scale] is somewhat less persuasive as it appears to rely heavily on personal observation judging by the way most arguments are formulated. That is at best a nuanced rejection, though to me it reads more like assigning greater weight to one argument than the other argument (which both support the same position) in reaching the conclusion. older ≠ wiser18:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, nuanced rejection but in Wikipedia discussions when someone gives personal observation as there support, it is Original Research and thus matter for rejection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look back at the RM, there was an entire wall of evidence based text as to why the state was not primary topic, and if there were any lines about personal opinion they were purely anecdotal and clearly backed up by citations. The oppose side raised a few good points, but none of them really stood the test of analysis against our policies and guidelines. My personal favourite was that moving the article would cause "irreparable harm" to Wikipedia. Not just any sort of harm, but irreparable harm. The encyclopedia would be broken for ever because New York no longer referred primarily to the state. — Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The close above did look at that supposed wall and found WP:Original Research, which is rejected, except in one area that was never disputed, that New York City, titled New York City, gets more daily page views - so we find ourselves again in the same narrow evidence, New York City gets allot of page views as New York City, and New York gets allot of page views as New York. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you continue to re-interpret the closer's words to suit your own predilections. There is no mention whatsoever of original research, not even a fair implication that this is what the closer meant. older ≠ wiser12:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said, in the close there was a "nuanced rejection" of "personal observation" - that is what Original Research is, that is why rejection arises. Besides, you must know that the statement you made about millions of people is a statement of original research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. You reinterpreted the closer's (and now apparently my own) comments to suit your own POV. The closer's comments seemed pretty well explained without interpolating original research into the mix. older ≠ wiser16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First. No. I followed what the closer said, and what you said. But perhaps you don't like it because it does not suit your POV. Nonetheless, your most recent comment suggests confusion on your part about what original reaserch is, as your 'millions' statement is obvious original reaserch. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closer said NOTHING about original research, that is your own desperate spin on it to bolster your POV. And if you are unable to tell the difference between an opinion and a original research, there is little point in continuing any discussion with you. Look through your own contributions on this and related pages to find just as much so-called original research. older ≠ wiser20:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they did with reference "personal observation", thus the reason it's discounted. Personal observation is precisely a way to say original research, that is what it is, a person says this is what they think and believe and an edit should reflect that, instead of summarizing WP:Reliable Sources. Your desperate argument not to understand personal observation and why it's discounted, apparently may well be because it just does not suit your POV. Perhaps, though, it is related to your totally confused understanding of "opinion" and of "original research". First, your saying millions of people do something is representing a fact, not an opinion. Second, of course, opinion can be Original Research. It's called SYNTH and similar things in policy. But, again, you claimed an unsupported fact not an opinion. You presented Original Research as the reason to make an edit. I, of course, am not supporting making any edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, didn't you ever think that maybe it's you who totally doesn't get what is commonly understood by "original research"at Wikipedia, and that's the reason why the other editors don't agree to your position on that point?
Original Research, in the sense that is covered and restricted by WP:OR, is something that applies EXCLUSIVELY to article content, never to discussion among editors in talk pages. The assertion that "the city is better known worldwide than the state" is never made within the article, so it can't be SYNTH. You can say that you regard those opinions as weak for not being backed up by facts; but that doesn't make them forbidden not even discouraged by policy, which is what you imply when you call them OR, and thus they remain as perfectly legitimate arguments. We usually call those opinions "editorial discretion", and are supported by WP:CONS. It definitely should not be "discounted" on OR ground when closing discussions (and fortunately the closer didn't discount it; rather its proper weight was assesed as part of the close). Diego (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I agreed with your premise of what discounting means or with the strictures on OR, it appears we can agree it's been found to be a weak case unsupported by RS, leaving us again with just the page views. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree that, being a WP:Sky is blue situation, editors didn't bother to link to the evidence (although I remember someone explicitly describing the kind of reliable sources supporting it, like travel advertising and air companies). Now that a closer has deemed this not enough to support the argument, such mistake won't be made in the next discussion. Diego (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot agree on that but we can agree that a new approach would certainly be needed to correct course. At least Wikipedia will be able to actually test your WP:Sky is not blue claims in a reasoned discussion then and not because movers want to edit into Wikipedia their personal predilections. As the largest travel reference work publisher in the English language, Fodor's, has New York at New York [3], and New York City at New York City [4] that can certainly elevate the discussion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the commercial page that feels they need to start its advertising of the state with "Say the words "New York" and icons like Times Square and the Museum of Modern Art may be the first things that pop to mind but..."? Heck yes, let's use it! Diego (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have we not been over this, according to policy, article titles are not the first thing that pop in your head. And indeed, the travel publisher explicitly says Times Square is in New York and MOMA is in New York, so that's excellent information to have. That does not mean we change Times Square's title to New York, or MOMA's to New York, nor New York's to Times Square or New York's to MOMA. Fodor's called that article New York and it is the state, which naturally includes Times Square and MOMA. You are free to argue that people think of all kinds of things when they think of New York, based on a half sentence but as is clear according to the source they all fall under the topic of New York. Encyclopedic topics cover things encyclopedically. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arby break
In an effort to get back on track, I'd like to study the subject more closely, that is, how to distinguish article ownership from stewardship. After reading the above back 'n forth, something emerges that might possibly be misconstrued: Obsessive behavior. Could that be a measure of ownership? My first instinct would be to say no, stewards of articles can probably become quite obsessed with some of the items on their watchlist. The above conversation has led me to describe two forms of obsessive behavior on the part of the stewards of this title and article about the great state of New York.
the equating of precise titles such as "Kuwait" and "Quebec" with the obviously imprecise title, "New York", and
the evident and complete disregard for the fact that a "page move" to "New York (state)" is not a "page rename" at all. Only obsessiveness would not recognize that the "state" qualifier is not a part of the page title, it's just a qualifier! The article would continue to be titled "New York" and only "New York". The only difference is that the "state" disambiguator in parentheses would make the title of this article precise. It would no longer be imprecise and would adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The actual article title would be unchanged – it would be exactly the same old "New York", with the sole addition of the gift of precision.
As you are the one who has claimed that you have an obsession and you are deep in WP:not a forum territory, here, it's best if you move your silly claims about others elsewhere. Article owners, own articles they intensively work on, not ones they render an editorial judgement with respect to. And when that judgement is backed up by RS, it can only be ludicrous, and far from policy compliant, to claim they own an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. I don't yet have an obsession with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because even though those policies and guidelines have been built over years of community consensus, even though as editors we all know that there must be darn good reason to circumvent policies and guidelines, I feel that such an obsession would only be blocked sooner or later by good ol' IAR! So no, I don't see any good in developing such an obsession any more than I see any good in the occasional obsessions of article stewards. Besides, obsession leads to delusion, which brings to mind your warm conversation with older ≠ wiser above. As you, Alanscottwalker, are decidedly one of the better editors on Wikipedia, you remind me of once when I asked a cop what it was about his job that he disliked the most? His answer... "I mostly dislike it when I have to arrest good people who've done bad things." When you've realized that you and 21 other good editors have done a bad thing here, only then will you release yourself from your semantic prison and find that the truth really will set you free! Paineu/c05:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure! And that is precisely what you have failed to comprehend – that any title, whether it is the name of a state or the name of anything else, when ambiguous and not renamed or disambiguated, makes our encyclopedia more confusing to our readers and less encyclopedic (in addition to being in direct conflict with Wikipedia guidelines and policies). The longer this ambiguous, imprecise title remains at the top of this article about the great state, the more it is a slap-in-the-face of anyone who has ever moved an ambiguous title away from an article. Have you ever done that, Alanscottwalker? Have you ever moved an imprecise title away from an article and renamed the article with a precise title? Then consider yourself slapped in the face along with the rest of us! Paineu/c10:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, need some ice for that? Come now, no one is physically or metaphorically hitting you, surely. That all seems rather dramatic: calling something by its common, encyclopedic name happens all the time on Wikipedia, no need to stress about it. As for precise, covering all the people and all the places of New York, etc. at New York is precisely, precise enough.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many think you are wrong, and only a few think you're correct, as noted by the RfC that finds that this article is not the primary topic of the title "New York". And it's interesting that you would say something like, "...covering all the people and all the places of New York, etc. at New York is precisely, precise enough." That just doesn't sound like something you would say. It's certainly not something you would say about all the other many, many titles that are imprecise and that you and I and others have moved away from Wikipedia articles. I thought you liked Wikipedia! (I don't understand why you would want this encyclopedia to appear inaccurate and imprecise in just this one case?) Paineu/c23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you do, Cassie. I intend to keep discussing it until you and others see the good in moving this imprecise page title away from this wonderful article about the great state of New York! And I might ask you the same question: Why would you want this encyclopedia to seem inaccurate and imprecise in just this one case? Paineu/c00:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you are just going to bludgeon the discussion until you get your way? Not cool. Look, I agree that this article should move, but frankly I think the attitude is terrible, and detrimental to a collegial discussion. I think it's time for all of us to walk away and have a cool off period. Six months seems reasonable. oknazevad (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that I intend to discuss this until those who don't recognize the bare "New York" title to be imprecise so as to confuse our readers understand the good and the necessity to stick to the guidelines and policies that lead us to do the right thing. Truly sorry if you actually consider that to be "bludgeoning"; however, I cannot understand how you could think so. I have been privileged to be involved with some of the most excellent editors on Wikipedia in this discussion, editors who can run rings around me when it comes to Wikipedia. So it's a true enigma to me why some of those editors seem unable or unwilling to sense the huge wrong we do by continuing to allow this situation to exist. So what I should have said is that I will continue to keep discussing it until move opposers either see the good in moving this imprecise page title away from this wonderful article about the great state of New York or I am made to understand the guidelineless, policyless and logicless rationales of the page move opposers! To me, that's more of a "self-bludgeoning" when you consider that I leave myself open not only to those editors who opposed the rename, but to those like you who don't. The plain fact of the matter is that the page move discussion has not been officially closed by the three-member panel that we asked to do the closing. Only one of those three has given their closing statement, so we still await closing statements from two other panel members. Until that happens, there is no reason in the world not to continue to discuss in a civil and attackless manner this page move request until complete understanding prevails. Paineu/c08:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to regard the RM as having been closed by User:Newyorkbrad on 22 September as no consensus either for or against the proposed move.[5] I can see how some would regard this close as unsatisfactory, but we need to move on. Andrewa (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In a manner of speaking, this actually is me "moving on" – yes, the close non-close is decidedly not satisfactory (even a "-tree" dipthong at the end doesn't help that one ). In the first place, with all due respect and sincere admiration for NYbrad, that editor, with a glaring "NY" in their username, was a poor choice for the closing panel in the first place. NYbrad seems to find it impossible to be objective, impartial and credible, although they do seem to try to be as helpful as possible under the circumstances. I would have no problem with this in a "normal" situation, since we all accepted NYbrad from the beginning in hopes that they would be objective. In this particular situation, NYbrad's opinion could reasonably be seen as a !supervote without the opinions of the other two panel members. So it is, to me, unreasonable to expect anything less than a proper close in order to properly fulfill the "NFC". This whole thing is about an ambiguous page title, so don't you find it ironic that the page-move close is as ambiguous as the page title we want to move? (perhaps even moreso) Paineu/c13:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's now two of the panel of three that someone has wanted disqualified since discussion closed and initial comments were delivered. We simply can't do that. There was rough consensus that this panel should be accepted. Further down the track there may be a time for questions about the verdicts, and as to why there has been no acknowledgement of the close by two of the panel, which to me is a far bigger issue. Any further panels should be preceded by a discussion as to exactly what is expected of the panel, and what went right and wrong this time could be part of that. But for any of the panel to comment further on the latest RM will now just complicate and delay things IMO. They have had their chance. The next thing is to build consensus and eventually get a better verdict if possible, with consensus one way or another. This may see the verdicts supported. I cannot imagine how, but I'm involved, to say the least. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
25 March is the date on which my self-imposed moratorium on raising a new RM expires, so I'm guessing that's why user:Castncoot has chosen it. But we still have quite a lot of work to do before that if it's not to go the same sorry way, which is why I originally proposed a six-month moratorium on related discussions to be followed by another six months of no RMs (but that proposal got no takers). Progress is being made, see User talk:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York and associated pages, but not as smoothly as I would like, see #Behaviour below. Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The requested move was indeed closed by me last month as no consensus, after several editors asked me to post a closing. The belated allegation above that I "find it impossible to be objective, impartial and credible" is offensive. To begin with, the reason I served on the closing panel for the RM is that I was specifically invited to do so. I asked at the time if it was an issue that I am myself a New Yorker, and was assured that it wasn't. In any event, I live and work both in New York State and in New York City (and in New York County, too, for that matter), so I don't understand what my bias might supposedly have been.
The idea that I cast a "supervote" by closing as no-consensus is nonsense also; the numerical result of the poll was 23-to-22, a tally that creates some presumption that consensus is lacking; and while some of the opposers' rationales were poor, other opposers did make valid points. These included some users' preference for leaving article names in status quo absent a strong need to move (I know there are other editors who strongly believe that's not a good argument, but I didn't, and don't, see a basis for disregarding it), and others' view that a disambiguation page is not a good target for a high-profile argument (again, a controversial viewpoint for some, but that's not a basis for the closing admin to disregard it either). I have a wiki-reputation for taking the slings-and-arrows that accompany adminship in stride, but I find the attack on my integrity and sincerity to be highly offensive.
The recent discussion on this page has seen a recrudescence of the flamboyant and frankly absurd, over-the-top rhetoric that has marred several prior phases of this discussion. If any either seriously thinks that "Every edit that I've made on Wikipedia, every edit you've made, every edit that every editor on Wikipedia has ever made that has been in adherence to policies and guidelines effectively means nothing – NOTHING – until this imprecise page title, "New York", is moved away from this article. Nothing.", and that the no-consensus closing "is a slap-in-the-face of anyone who has ever moved an ambiguous title away from an article," then that editor has suffered a very serious loss of perspective and needs to disengage.
This entire episode reflects our community's pattern of focusing entirely disproportionate amounts of the time and effort of our editors, which is Wikipedia's most important resources, on minor matters of nomenclature. It is the sort of thing that brings the project into mockery, and it should not go on any longer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nearly all of this, which somehow crossed my post [6] above... in that I was looking at a previous diff rather than the current page when I posted it, that's why we didn't get an edit conflict. Thank you for the time and trouble you have put into it.
But one of your fellow panelists described the current situation as a glaring and damaging error... and they were not the one who !voted for consensus to move. It needs a better resolution... at the appropriate time. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Since you quoted me above, I can assume that you already know precisely what I think is the sort of thing that brings the project into mockery and should not go on any longer. So there is no need to repeat it. Great word, "recrudescence"! And it's easy to tell what it means in the context you use, even if one has no idea what is its definition. Please don't take too much offense at my words, since I did try to soften the blow a bit. I and all others accepted you as a member of a three-person closing panel. A panel with three members seemed like a good idea at the time, so what do you suppose is wrong with it now? How well would your 33.3% No-consensus decision have been accepted if you had originally been the only uninvolved closer? That's a significant point here. Yes, you were asked and accepted, but that acceptance was not just based upon your heavily trusted past experience here. Your acceptance as a member of the panel was also based upon your critical partnership with two other members, who would hopefully work with you in unison to come to a joint decision in regard to this requested move, so I ask you again to please rethink and to withdraw your single close decision so that the rest of us can come to consensus in regard to precisely how to move forward with this requested move. As long as you don't do this, as long as your closing decision is out there waiting for two other closing rationales from two other panel members to yield a final and unquestioned close decision, we pretty much have here what can only be described as a stalemate. Please, Newyorkbrad, please, I call upon you to exercise your formidable influence over all the editors who are involved in this ongoing saga and withdraw your singleton close. That would lift the cloud and help us more clearly see our way forward. Thank you for any consideration you may give in this matter. Paineu/c20:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to assume that the other two panelists have by their silence accepted the verdict. I also find this most unsatisfactory, as in their most recent comments both seemed to think that a move was the right thing. But one did also find no consensus. We must move on. Andrewa (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad displayed impeccable integrity and skill in handling a Herculean and entirely unenviable task phenomenally. I doubt that any of the armchair critics here could have done nearly as well as he did with such an extraordinarily tricky and difficult scenario. Agree that it's time to move on, regardless of one's viewpoint. Castncoot (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is far too early to make that call, and probably not good for involved editors such as ourselves to try to make it anyway.
To editors Castncoot, Andrewa and Newyorkbrad: I agree with you, Cassie, and I want to make it clear that I have no problem with Newyorkbrad at all, which is why I was one of many who approved of that editor's seat on the closing panel. My problem is only with the close of this requested move and the way it's been done. Unlike some others, I do not accept the assumption that the other two panel members tacitly agree with the no-consensus close. I see this as an unorthodox and insufficient close thus far. The only thing that changes this is the withdrawal of NYBrad's close. That way we can ask another uninvolved admin, or invite three others to sit on a new panel, to properly close this discussion. If NYBrad decides not to withdraw their close, then we must fall back to this being an unsuccessful close and closure. I certainly don't look forward to that, but for me, this is "moving on". Paineu/c06:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that if Newyorkbrad were to withdraw their close then that might open a new possibility. But I said might, as it would be unprecedented as far as I can see, and has a couple of other more serious drawbacks. There is a question in my mind as to whether a new closer (panel or otherwise) would take the subsequent RfC into account, they might I suppose take it as clarifying the merits of some of the arguments and !votes that they were assessing. Taking up the subsequent suggestion that New York become a primary redirect would be even more doubtful, I can't see how they could accommodate that at all, and I think it is at least as important as the RfC. I watch with interest. Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To briefly review the bidding here, three editors were asked to close the RM discussion. I was asked to be one of them, made sure there were no objections to my doing so, and agreed. When it was time for the closing, I reviewed all the RM comments and arguments, and concluded there was no consensus either for or against a move, and explained why. In response to subsequent questions, I amplified my thinking, albeit perhaps not to some people's satisfaction. The second closer, Niceguyedc, disagreed with me and, based on his evaluation of the strength of the arguments, thought there was a consensus to move. The third closer, {Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, though he personally thought the move-supporters have the better of the arguments, ultimately concluded that there was no consensus.
With two of three closers finding no consensus, it was apparent to me that the overall result was "no consensus" also. That said, I said I would be glad to participate in further deliberations if the other closers thought it would be helpful. However, Niceguyedc seemed be on a wikibreak (which is continuing; his last edit was almost three months ago). Fut.Perf. remains an active editor and administrator; he's been pinged to these discussions several times, but seems not to have anything further to add.
At that point, I hadn't planned to say anything else, but in late September, a month or so after the original close process, I was repeatedly pinged to the RM closure page and I was implored to post some sort of a closing notice to put an end to any uncertainty over the result. I complied with the result and formally closed the RM as no consensus.
Now I am being told by another editor, a month later, that I should not have closed the RM after all and I am being asked to withdraw the closure so that the closing process can start all over again. After the time and effort I have expended on this entire situation, I have no reason to change my opinion, and I certainly have no desire to compound the morass of procedural nonsense that is being conjured up over what remains a minor matter. The closure of "no consensus either for or against a move", accordingly, stands. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour
Several posts above involve personal attack. The no personal attacks policy is not just about civility, in fact that's a separate policy (and may also have been transgressed). WP:NPA is about discussing the contribution not the contributor. In particular article talk pages such as this one are for discussing improvements to the article.
It is generally a breach of policy to even discuss behaviour on an article talk page such as this one. Behavioural issues should be discussed on user talk pages and escalated in need.
I raise it here because several different editors have discussed each others' behaviour above, and I think it's important to point out here the policy for the benefit of those reading this. They could otherwise be badly led astray, thinking it is acceptable.
It's not. There has been a lot of it in the wider discussion about what should be at this base name New York, and it must stop. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Religion
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.
This user Castncoot is a world-class vandal and this user considers that reliable information about religion should not be included in the article.
Information about the religion has no problem being added in good articles in wikipedia such as Texas. Why is the article about the State of New York banned for religion?.
Then the article about religion in the United States should also be eliminated. According to the ignorant users information about religion should be banned in all the articles of all the States of United States.
The 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Survey showed the religious makeup of the state was as follows:
Support inclusion. While I emphatically do not support the OPs description of Castncoot as a "world-class vandal" in this matter (in fact, they certainly aren't, it's just a content dispute), I do think that this information is a vast improvement over the current offerings for the state's religions, which list only the arbitrary 'top four' religions with simple counts of practitioners. Castncoot reverted the first instance with an edit summary stating subdividing into "Christian vs Non-Christian" is oversimplification, must then subdivide Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism as well - which, well, the table does exactly that. If you feel strongly about getting rid of the higher-level divisions (Christian, Non-Christian, Unaffiliated, Don't know) then go ahead and do that, it's an easy edit. This information has greater depth and is from a more recent source than the previous offering, which is very sparse in comparison. The later accusations of WP:POV in edit summaries are particularly unfounded, this is quite neutral in presentation. In any case, as of this comment, you're both at the limit of WP:3RR (sorry, Castncoot just went to the fourth revert while I was typing this - seriously, why) so perhaps just accept that the WP:WRONGVERSION is up until we can talk about this for a bit. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC) I swear I can usually count - reversion count corrected, with apologies, Antepenultimate (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Antepenultimate, I did not go to the fourth revert. That was User:Oknazevad who did the good deed there. I also want to respectfully point out that you are incorrect about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism being subdivided into their own various denominations. As you see above, they clearly are not. This can't be done simply for one religion and not the others. That is WP:UNDUE. Castncoot (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Castncoot, and my sincere apologies, I definitely mis-counted there. I've struck through the erroneous phrase, late though it may be. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I disagree somewhat but it's a fine line, I suppose the breakdown of Christian denominations makes sense here, given the significant numbers contained within each denomination. Whereas in a country with a preponderance of non-Christian religions, it would make sense to lump Christians and break down other major faiths that have significant participation. That's just an opinion, of course, and I would certainly support inclusion of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed Judaism, etc. if the data is available, though it seems to be a limitation of how the survey was conducted. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ante, no offense taken and no worries. It's precisely that limitation of the survey that makes it a deal-breaker for me, simply because it doesn't do due justice to the other religions in New York (the title of this article), and in the process actually misguides the reader that the other religions in New York can simply be lumped together like that. Jewry in New York constitutes a significant 7% representation, whereas in the U.S. as a whole it's much less, and your argument could potentially carry a more acceptable representation for the U.S. as a whole, which is how Pew likely decided upon what data to investigate in the first place. However, this limitation really does become an objectionable issue in the New York article. Obviously Pew itself is a reliable source, that was never the issue for me. We also currently already have the religion bar graph for New York that gives the reader a good idea of the proportional breakdown of the major religions. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion. This graph seems to have about the right level of detail and be properly sourced. Castncoot was taking part in the accepted bold-revert-discuss process, so accusations of vandalism are unfair and unhelpful. Certes (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion. Religious breakdowns are appropriate for this article if sourced correctly and they are about the state and not the city, county, or metropolitan area. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion. To the best of my knowledge, the Pew Research Center is a reliable source. The data in this chart seems more useful than the one currently in the article. "Christian" is too broad a category for religion data in the U.S. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some reservations about the breakdowns, but Pew is usually considered a reliable source. I only reverted to force discussion and end the edit war. oknazevad (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC) PS, I do think the hysterics and bad faith accusation of vandalism deserves a trouting, but that's just me. oknazevad (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in concept but Oppose in application: I have no problem with the Pew source or the table in concept. I do indeed have a problem with the subdivision of only one religion into various denominations when the other religions also have similarly intricate denominational subdivisions, and I do also oppose having categories called "Non-Christian faiths" or "Other Non-Christian faiths", for the same WP:UNDUE reason. For example, Judaism is subdivided into Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed classes, and within these classes are even more complex sects. Are these intricacies reflected in this table? No, they are not, but one looking at this table would be misguided as such. Obviously Pew is a RS, but that is not at all the issue which I've brought up here. The other thing is that we already have a religion bar chart there. So why do we need another, duplicative chart? Castncoot (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the time being. I think the breakdown from Christian to Catholic, Protestant, and Other is an obvious one to make. It has nothing to do with favoritism toward any one religion and everything to do with the fact that these are the largest religious groups in the state. I would similarly expect an article on a majority Muslim country to break down Muslims into Sunnis and Shi'ites at the very least but not break down Christians. I don't see a need to break down Protestants further or to list individual Christian sects with 1% or less of the population, so in an ideal world, we'd condense that a bit. This table is better than no table, though. I have to oppose, on the other hand, referring to Castncoot as a "world-class vandal". If I weren't WP:INVOLVED on this page, I would have considered blocking for that blatant personal attack. We don't need further escalation here. ~ Rob13Talk17:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe obvious to you, but not to many others, who would instead see it as blatantly WP:UNDUE. This is not an article about the United States, (nor any other country), but New York. Let's look at this carefully. Christianity has a 60% (as opposed to 98%, for example) representation, while Unaffiliated has a significant 27%(!) representation (quite a large number). Judaism has a highly significant 7% representation as well. I feel strongly that if this table is placed, then it needs to be heavily edited. There is no place for the term "Non-Christian faiths" or "Other Non-Christian faiths". Maybe it should read "Non-Christian/Unaffiliated/Jewish faiths" or "Other Non-Christian/Unaffiliated/Jewish faiths". Do you see my point? Where does it end? Why not just maintain the bar graph that is already there, but in text format, describe the breakdown of Christianity and any other religion into its respective denominations as the information is or becomes available, and reference it with the appropriate citation? That seems more reasonable and far less WP:UNDUE, because text placement generally carries less burden to provide comprehensive information and is more accommodating to an "add along as you get more citable information available" approach. By the way, although I appreciate everybody vouching for me as not being a "world-class vandal", I'm still laughing about that comment rather than being much bothered by it, lol! Castncoot (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot: You are questioning here the way Pew conducted their survey; perhaps you would have split religious affiliations differently but that would be your WP:OR. We must either follow the source we have or find a better one. And this source is more recent and detailed than the previous information, hence my support for inclusion as presented. — JFGtalk23:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion as presented – This table is a clear and representative summary of religious affiliations (or lack thereof) in the New York (state) population. Admonish the OP for incivility towards Castncoot: he may be opinionated at best and hyperbolic at worst, far far away from vandal territory. (We love you, Castie…) — JFGtalk23:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your humorous, good-faith description of me, JFG :). Again, to re-emphasize, I don't have any problem with Pew as a reliable source, and I don't have a problem with Pew's table as designed macroscopically for the U.S. as a whole, which was Pew's likely premise when choosing its categorization. The problem is that this particular table's applicability (as is) breaks down into WP:UNDUE territory for the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia when it is applied toward certain subnational entities such as New York, which has very different demographics from the U.S. as a whole, just as Greater London (pardon me if that's not the best analogy) has very different demographics from the UK as a whole. Remember that Pew didn't design this table with Wikipedia in mind. So it's really not a "clear and representative summary of religious affiliations (or lack thereof) in the New York (state) population", because if it were, it would have at minimum included a subdivisional demographic breakdown for New York's prominent Jewish population into Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed designations. Without even that, the table gives the unwitting reader an inaccurate view of religious affiliations in New York. If Christianity claimed 98% of adherents in a given state, as it would in a number of other states in the U.S., then I could go along with the logic of including the terms "Non-Christian faiths" and "Other Non-Christian faiths" on that state's Wikipedia page. But the case is nearly diametrically opposite for New York, the subject of this article. I would rather wait for a more accurate representation to materialize (or edit the table accordingly) than sacrifice representative accuracy for the sake of "more detail" – which is not necessarily "better", and can actually bring about just the opposite. Castncoot (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've heard your point loud and clear, Castncoot; repetitive persistence is another of your prominent qualities… Now, this table is long enough. Rather than subdividing the Jewish denominations (for which we have no data), perhaps we should lump the lower-than-2% Christian subgroups together with "Other Christian" which would then reach 3%, and call it a day. — JFGtalk03:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now we're getting somewhere! Who ever thought you and I could agree on something, JFG? :) I'm OK with your suggestion, provided we also eliminate the term "Non-Christian faiths" (which is totally unnecessary) and replace the term "Other Non-Christian faiths" with the term "Other faiths". Castncoot (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Faith works miracles! (no matter which religion) Note it's the second time we agree; no doubt we're on a mission from God. I also agree that the "non-christian" labels are useless clutter. Given the overwhelming consensus to include, I think our fellow editors above won't object if you go ahead and copy your draft into the article now. How refreshing to discuss something else than the-state-that-mustn't-be-renamed… — JFGtalk03:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Love your puns, JFG, and yes, I do remember the other occasion when we reached agreement – and yes, I will go ahead and insert the chart, once an admin lifts the block collectively on us non-admins. Castncoot (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request to New York has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The religion graph, currently being discussed in talk, is misplaced in the language section. Please move the {{bar}} template (search for "bar box|title=Religion") down a few lines to below the "Religion" subheader.
Certes (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
— JFG talk 10:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
— JFG talk 12:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Done Castncoot (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
