Talk:New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Former good article nominee New York was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
May 6, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geography (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Requested move 9 June 2016[edit]

SSTFlyer closed and re-closed (is there even such a thing?) this Move request on 18 June, 2016. Next, the outcome was controverted and listed at Move review, on June 21 (mentioned here, just above). Next, bd2412 closed that Move review as Overturn and relist (never clear whether "overturn" means full undo or just revert to undecided), on 7 July. (Update not mentioned here.) The new RfM was pre-listed for initial discussion at Talk:New_York/July 2016 move request (instead of on this page), on 7 July. (Change was not mentioned here.) The "re-listing" (new Move request) will not be "filed" and real discussion begin (there, not here) until July 14 22:00 18 July 2016 (is there even such a thing as a deferred RfM? (They're actually deleting comments!)). (Only mentioned here NOW, 11:22, 18 July 2016.) -A876 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There are three possible ways to close this discussion, depending on how the discussion closer interprets the consensus.

  1. Closing this as “no consensus”. Some participants consider the state to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, some consider the city to be the primary topic, some do not think a primary topic exists.
  2. Moving the state away from the base title, and moving the city to the base title. Stronger arguments support having a primary topic than not, and of the arguments in support of having a primary topic, support is stronger for the city than the state.
  3. Moving the state away from the base title, and moving the disambiguation page to the base title. There is no consensus for having either the city or the state to be the primary topic, and some participants think a primary topic does not exist.

This is not an easy decision. I originally closed this as “no consensus” according to option 1, but now I am modifying my closure to implement option 3 instead. Among policy-based arguments, there is rough consensus that the state is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should not be at the base title, thus option 1 (maintaining the status quo) is not optimal. On the other hand, I do not consider the consensus to move New York City to the base title to be strong enough. Therefore, I am closing this as move New York the state to New York (state) (suggestions to use WP:PARENDIS instead of WP:NATURALDIS were not opposed), and move New York (disambiguation) to New York. This is without prejudice against a new RM discussion at Talk:New York City to move the city to the base title. (closed by a page mover) SSTflyer 05:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)



New YorkNew York State – According to the AP Stylebook, New York City is listed as New York, and is also the legal name of the city. The state and city use New York for a name. The state does not have primary usage of the name. Most people, when saying "New York", refer to the city and not the state. If people were referring to the state, they should say "New York State" or "State of New York" or "Upstate New York", etc. I propose having the state named New York State and having the city named New York City, with New York as a disambiguation page. Also, New York State instead of New York (state) is WP:NATURAL. There is really no WP:PRIMARY topic of "New York" - you could be referring to the state or the city. That is why I am proposing this new requested move. Another option, instead of New York as a disambiguation page, is to redirect it to New York City, although I am opposed to it. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support – Simple logic. I've never understood how the state gained primary topic status. It clearly isn't the primary topic. Certainly, as a Briton, we know the city more than the state, for instance. RGloucester 22:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Also never understood the state primary topic status. I am foreign, so for me, New York is the city. Searching New York and finding the State topic is puzzling. And annoying. I would prefer if New York redirects to New York City. --Robertiki (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many discussions before. Nominee has offered no proof about how "most people" use the term, merely assertions. The line "If people were referring to the state, they should say "New York State" or "State of New York" or "Upstate New York", etc. " is especially silly; someone could equally say "If people are referring to the city, they should say "New York City". Who is issuing these "shoulds?" Additionally, "New York" (state) and "Upstate New York" are not synonyms! Plenty of NY State activities in New York City, too. It'd be like claiming the City of London is not part of London. Anyway, no other US state has "State" randomly added to the end; the state is merely "New York", so if the article is moved, it should honor the format of Georgia (U.S. state) and go to New York (U.S. state). But there's no need for such a move. SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment SnowFire New York (state) is definitely open to discussion. I picked New York State because it is WP:NATURAL. And... please Explain to me how the state is the primary topic, and not the city and than we can chat ;) Cheers, ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 00:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
How does London contribute to this argument? City of London is a city within a city (London). We are talking about city and state. New York mostly refers to the city, more than the state. There is no primary topic. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 00:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The claim that if people mean the state, they'll say "Upstate New York". Which is nonsensical because "Downstate New York" is also part of New York (state)! And there's plenty of things within NYC that refer specifically to the *State*, e.g. state income taxes, state police, etc. Saying that New York City isn't in New York is equivalent to saying City of London isn't in London, that is, really wrong. New York (City) is in fact part of New York (state), so "Upstate New York" is not equivalent.
  • I'm a huge fan of natural disambiguation over parenthetical, but think it's a bad idea for the likes of U.S. states, where the formal name is important (e.g. Hawaii, not Hawaiʻi). As for primary topic, no, I agree, there isn't a clear primary topic. "New York" can refer to either the city or the state. However, there are lots of other considerations that make the current setup acceptable, and for further move requests just to be churn. It avoids a disambiguation page at a highly-trafficed page, and a hatnote enables the other option as well as the disambig page to be easily accessed. It means that, SomeTownName, New York, a very common address format, points where you'd expect. It makes a lot of formal references by state to not need to be converted to anything crazy, e.g. things like election results which will only say "New York" not "New York state". THere's more reasons in the archives, too. How does this move placing a disambiguation page here help? Inertia is a real criterion; some location has to win, and it's easier for all involved if it's only changed with a really good reason. Think of it this way: we flip a coin in 2002, and just accept that whether it lands on city or state, we just run with it afterward. They both can't win, and the article isn't improved by moving it back & forth, or to a disambig. SnowFire (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe you are confusing what I am saying. I never said that New York City was never apart of the state. New York City is a city in the State of New York. I am very open to the discussion. New York (currently the state) should be named New York State or New York (state) and New York City should remain the same. New York should than become a disambiguation page, or it should redirect to New York City with a hatnote to New York State. Listen, I am here to make Wikipedia easier and more reliable to use. They both can't win? Oh, so that's how it will be ;) Something needs to be done. Many people internationally think of "New York" as simply referring to the city. The state should not have priority over the city. The city is more known internationally than the state. That is why I am bringing this up ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The name of the state is "New York." I agree with SnowFire above about state article naming conventions. However, the status quo is the simplest, as both city and state have titles that are also names in common usage. Fitnr 02:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The name of the city is also "New York", and there is no way that anyone can claim that the state has primary topic status. The point is that when one types New York, one shouldn't be sent to the state's page. There should be a dab page, or maybe someone can present a case for primary topic status for the city. I don't know. The present situation, however, is not supported by any guidelines or policies. RGloucester 03:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment Fitnr, should we change Washington (state) to Washington ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Sure, I think you could make a good argument for that. To make it a better analogy: Ignore the person, and imagine the choice was only between using Washington for the state or the city. The obvious solution would be to give the plain name to the state and use Washington, D.C. for the city. Under the status quo, both articles have simple names. There are going to be hatnotes on both articles either way, so why not avoid parentheses, which are ugly and possibly confusing to people unfamiliar with naming conventions? Fitnr 02:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on so many levels, I'm surprised this is up for discussion again. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
ɱ — I am just as surprised as you ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 14:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok among the arguments I agree with: Parenthetical disambiguators are ugly and to be avoided when possible, the hatnote at the top of this article makes any confusion clear and quickly solved, and the suggestions on the search bar should allow most people to find the right page. And this FAQ. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If a hatnote is proven to work, than I will close this argument as me being ignorant. Well... actually, I change my mine. Let's just let the requested move take its 7 day course ;) ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I think the state is the primary topic for "New York". I especially oppose "New York State". Natural disambiguation has a place, but not like that. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Nohomersryan We could use New York (state) or New York (U.S. state), but it sounds like you are a no goer, anyway, shape or form ;) that's fine with me pal. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 14:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per the FAQ, Past proposals exist, and prior to making new proposals, one should review those that have already taken place, such as the ones that occurred in Oct–Nov 2004, Feb 2005, Feb–Sep 2005, Mar–Aug 2008, and Oct–Nov 2010.. I see no evidence the nominator actually did. Also, I'm surprised by the bluntness of commenters who believe the lack of a primary topic is plainly obvious.MelanieLamont (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
MelanieLamont Aye, I guess I did not read the instructions very well ;) ... oops! Bluntness: abrupt in address or manner... and am I really that bluntness, sweetie pie? Face-grin.svg ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 14:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current setup is fine, and this RM seems like a solution looking for a problem. Users searching for the city who end up here can use the hatnote, the link to NYC in the lead paragraph, or the one in the infobox. Calidum ¤ 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Per cookiemonster, I'm afraid NYC is the primary topic for NY by a mile, especially outside of the US. newyork.com seems to be 100% about NYC. Timmyshin (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Support what wording exactly? And you should read the old RMs, which make notes that people always ask for clarification when you say you're from New York. As a New Yorker formerly living in California, saying I was from New York always required further explanation. Btw, the website newyork.com isn't owned by any government; some company holds the domain and can therefore do whatever they want with it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the relevance of that website is to this discussion. Calidum ¤ 20:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's the first result when you Google "New York", and Google usually does a good job ranking its search results (they hire hundreds of human raters to do this). The point is when most people say NY they mean NYC. At the very least the state isn't primary, and placing the state at baseline for convenience purposes runs counter to the guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This isn't "Kansas" vs. "Kansas City". Timmyshin (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there's nothing wrong with the current set-up. -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, really? Should I just close it and call myself ignorant of the facts? :O ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 19:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both the state and the city are referred to as New York. Would also suggest that we move New York (disambiguation)New York at the same time as neither the state or the city is the primary topic. Ebonelm (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed and extremely strongly oppose a dab page at New York. The latter is such a waste, ruining everyone's day and wasting everyone's time. But most of the information that NYC's article would have can instead make it to the reader through the state's article; unfortunately, the reverse is not true, which for me dictates that the state should stay primary. Red Slash 21:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That view however runs contrary to WP:DAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines. I assume you'll be taking issue with pages such as Washington, Palestine, and Georgia on the grounds that currently nobody gets the page they really want when using these search terms and that it would be better to be really helpful to one small sub-set of searchers but really irritating to the majority? Ebonelm (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The state is clearly not the primary topic for "New York" by any metric laid out at the guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Jenks24, or move to New York (state). There does not appear to be a WP:Primary topic for the term "New York", so the term needs disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I notice that the other ambiguous U.S. state names are at Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (state). In line with those examples, I suggest that New York (state) sees preferable to New York State. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I would be OK with the parenthetical if that is our usual form of disambiguation in these cases. Jenks24 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe it's the non-American in me, but I definitely think of the state when someone says "New York". Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This discussion shows that some people think of the state when they think "New York", while some think of the city. In any case, many people think of the state, and as New York State is not limited to one part of the state, that should be the default. The hatnote pointing readers to New York City should be plenty sufficient. And what's more, the New York / New York City titling has worked for years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
If the hatnote has proved to be useful, than I will not support my own proposal :O ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 03:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the one who proposed this - I will be honest - I live in Oregon and I think of state when someone says New York. If I was to refer to the city, I would refer to the specific borough. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 03:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the FAQ, and per WP:DONTFIXIT. The hatnote serves well, and there really isn't a clear primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Oknazevad:, you are correct there isn't a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that's why it should be a DAB page, per the guidelines. Ebonelm (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:TWODAB, though. Hatnotes are sufficient, not a dab page. Cuts the number of clicks a reader might need to make, while making the link far more prominent that it would be even on the best designed dab page. It's literally the first thing after the title. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect, both the status quo and the propsed move would only require one click. Ebonelm (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Then why bother changing it if there's no reduction in clicks? And I still think the hatnote it in a better position to immediately let the reader know if they're in the right place or not. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Because the State of New York is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term 'New York'. The New York State and New York City pages will still have a hatnote link to one another. For the exact same reason we have DAB pages at Georgia and Washington. Ebonelm (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The state is clearly not the primary topic. Possibly there isn't one; If there is it would be New York City. For example, if an Australian newsreader were to say most of New York is currently blacked out that would mean the city, unambiguously. Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Very poor example. Never has most of the state lost power, even during Hurricane Sandy, likely the most devastating disaster to affect the state in modern history. So of course in that context you'd link it with NYC. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Very poor logic. While Americans may be aware of these details (or not), most Australians are not. So in this context, the historical facts are irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, clearly you weren't aware of it to give such an example, but the concept of most of New York losing power is ridiculous and impossible. Nevertheless, New York is definitely the larger topic as well as the larger entity, based on all of the ways it's used and more. Even that sentence should count as proof because I don't really have to specify. New York City is not New York. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Another poor guess... I'm well aware of these events, but many Australians would not be. As for your confidence that the concept of most of New York losing power is ridiculous and impossible, are you aware that this is what most power engineers thought of the failure that did occur... before it occurred. But that's beside the point really. See more discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

I note that in the titles New York, New York (So Good They Named It Twice), The Sidewalks of New York, An Englishman in New York, etc., the phrase New York refers to the city. That to me is evidence that the primary topic may be the city. At the very least, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (and the above discussion is long on opinions, short on evidence), it seems to count against any other primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


Oh my goodness, I can't believe I keep missing these important RMs before it's too late. @SSTflyer: please could you reopen? I wholeheartedly support this move, and I have long regarded it as a big anomaly on Wikipedia, where we're following some unwritten rule (that states are automatically superior to cities), rather than our policies. New York state is not primary over the city by either of our two WP:PTOPIC criteria, common usage or long term significance. I will say more about this when I ahve some time. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, you say in your close that "both sides have made valid arguments". I'd be interested to know what the valid arguments of the opposers are, other than "we discussed this many times before", and "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". Which aren't valid arguments at all. A few people say that the state is primary for the term over the city, but fail to give any evidence. Whereas the evidence that the state is not the primary topic is quite overwhelming - just type "New York" into Google search or Google books search, and see what the results refer to. A move to New York (state) (to match Washington (state), or indeed New York State is really a no brainer here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with this. Arguments are supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy. Policy seems to indicate a move, to me.
It is possible, even likely, that in the USA, New York the state is better known than in the rest of the world. I'm still skeptical that the state would be the primary meaning even in the US, but in any case this is English Wikipedia, not US Wikipedia. The city of New York has a world wide fame that the state can't equal, and this is reflected in English usage of the term New York to most often mean the city.
But whether or not the city is the primary meaning is a discussion for another time. This one is about whether the state is the primary meaning. No case has been made that it is in terms of policy and guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Implementation[edit]

@Wbm1058 and Amakuru: before performing these page moves (which requires an administrator because this article is move-protected), existing pages that link to New York must be updated, because the disambiguation page is going to take its place. Normally I would do this using AWB, but with 73,972 articles having links to the state, it simply isn’t feasible for me to update all these links by hand. How should all these links be updated? Should a bot request be filed? SSTflyer 06:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This should have been closed by an administrator, if not by a team of admins. I'm taking it to move review. "Page movers" are stepping way out of bounds here. I admit a bit of "involved-ness" here, as a native of Upstate. The state is the primary topic. wbm1058 (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, that's my initial gut reaction. Let me calm down, and perhaps I'll have a more measured response in a bit. wbm1058 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect that this "involved-ness" is significant. See my comment in the RM discussion (it was actually made after the first close and was incorporated into the archived discussion by the second close). Andrewa (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Having these pages link to the DAB is not a serious problem. In time these will all be fixed, and the sooner the moves are performed, the sooner we can start on the process.
It's not a suitable job for a bot, because of the risk that a considerable number of the links are already intended to link to New York City or perhaps New York metropolitan area. So I'm afraid we need to examine each one by hand.
Which needs doing anyway. The very first page on the what links here list, in fact, is American Football Conference, and while I can't find the relevant link there (can't see why), the three occurrences of New York on that page all mean New York metropolitan area rather than the entire state. There will be many, many more. Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It was the link for the location of the Buffalo Bills. Most definitely not about NYC or its metro area. Just sayin' oknazevad (talk)
@Andrewa: The link to the article on this state is hidden in the seemingly single link "Buffalo, NY". The link to New York State (this article) is in the "NY" portion. The link to Buffalo, New York, is in the "Buffalo" portion. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking just from a technical standpoint now. Something of this magnitude cannot be done overnight. If you just move the page now, the good volunteers at WikiProject Disambiguation will be throwing darts at you. The Disambiguation pages with links machine will blow some gaskets.

There are nearly 400 templates linking to New York. I suppose the first step would be to manually disambiguate those templates. The next step would be to wait, likely a month or more, for the job queue to work through those. Then take another look at the remaining what-links-here results to evaluate methods for efficient disambiguation of the rest. There may be ways it could be tackled by AWB if specific usage patterns can be detected.

But any way you cut this, it's a major undertaking at this point in the Wikipedia project. I've gotta think that if such disambiguation was really necessary, it would have been done years ago. The bigger the encyclopedia gets, the harder this gets to implement. We should hold off on beginning implementation until after this is reviewed. wbm1058 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually you would move the page, but New York must redirect to New York (state) for an extended period of time. New York (disambiguation) should not be moved over the base title until the groundwork is done, and only a manageable number of pages needing disambiguation remain. wbm1058 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've started the process of implementation - moving the economy, politics, education, flag and government articles to the "(state)" title (cleaning up all the links after the move), and I've cleaned up the {{United States topic}} template where it is used so that it works properly. There's a long way to go, but moving the page to New York (state) and leaving the leftover redirect alone for a bit would be helpful. It would allow us to change the target of all of the redirects that are going to point to the state article instead of the disambiguation page without having one of the double-redirect bots changing them back. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 13:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, your changes are good. There are over 60 redirects; I suppose those that don't explicitly include "state" in some form will be kept as is. wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: I suggest keeping the redirect from New York to New York (state) for a transition period of at least 6 months, so all the links can be cleaned up. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
A point regarding this. I support disambiguation of this nature, especially with topics like "finance industry in..." or "tourism in..." as with some of these the city will arguably be primary or closer to primary. However, this has limits. For example, List of mountains of New York, disambiguation is not necessary because the meaning of "New York" is well-understood in context. The city has no mountains. wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As with List of mountain peaks of Washington Face-smile.svg wbm1058 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
But what about Mount Vernon, both owned by a Washington and near Washington, D.C.?Face-smile.svg Antepenultimate (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess! This means that we're going to have to move a lot of articles with titles "List of x in New York" or "x in New York" to "List of x in New York (state)" or "x in New York (state)" (see Special:CategoryTree/New York). This is a move with really large consequences. This really needs move review. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the title is already sufficiently concise without the addition of state or a similar disambiguator, then there's no need to move the article. I did a quick Google on "list of" "New York" Wikipedia and both List of New York state prisons and List of New York hurricanes were on the first page. There's no need to move either of these articles (for different reasons). There will be many similar. Andrewa (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion[edit]

I see some discussion has continued within the closed MR, but ideally that shouldn't be modified. And sorry, I do feel the need to give my opinion, even if it's too late (did it ever cross anyone's mind to notify any of the regional NY WikiProjects, all of which are heavily affected by this rushed decision?)

This entire thing seems to hinge on a Google search. Given the city's economic importance and tourism appeal, it is not surprising that it is well-represented online. That seems to be the sole evidence-based argument that the city is PRIMARYTOPIC; both support and oppose give unsourced assertions that the state is, or isn't, primary. (I strongly disagree that "Among policy-based arguments, there is rough consensus that the state is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". "Rough" is way too generous.) Evidence pointing to the state perhaps being primary is plain in the section above this comment; I do not thing you will find that an excess of those incoming links were intended for the city. Every single municipality, park, building, person born, etc. outside of the metro area will have a link to the state page. I don't know if this is worth the massive effort "fixing" this problem will cause.

I don't see a strong argument demolishing WP:NATURAL here, by the way. It is natural for people to append "New York", meaning the state, when describing the location of anything outside the city. It is also natural for people to do the same within the city, but not at all uncommon to say "New York City" instead, a natural name that is plainly recognizable to people worldwide. There is no natural equivalent for referring to the state. Hence, the current setup makes sense, and is in no way confusing for visitors to this site, some of whom at worst may need to click on a hatnote link. (This new 'solution' forces everyone to make an extra click, how is this an improvement in usability?)

Sorry. Really wish I had known about this before its effects started blowing up my watchlist. I strongly feel this should be re-opened or reviewed. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind reopening this for another week if that's what we want. SSTflyer 14:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Echoing Antepenultimate above. This definitely needs to be reopened; non-admins should only be closing unanimous decisions, not controversial discussions like these. I, too, failed to see very much policy on either side, so the suggestion that there is consensus among policy-based arguments is wildly inaccurate and the closure comes across as a supervote.
The fact that the closer waffled on what course of action to take is proof that they shouldn't have closed it in the first place. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I second Chase's and Antepenultimate's calls to re-open the RM. This is controversial, so a page mover shouldn't have closed. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I third these calls, in objectivity no consensus has been reached, at least yet. Votes and arguments are still very well split. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I would call myself surprised that the close has now been reversed this way, following my appeal to the closer yesterday. But having said that, it is absolutely the right close, whether by a non-admin or not. Make no mistake, New York state is an important topic, and I wouldn't go as far as to say that the city is primary over the state, but to suggest the city is definitely below the state is also hard to defend, and I don't think any of the oppose votes above make a decent case of it, particularly when calling to mind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the two criteria of "common usage" and "long term significance". New York City is a massive contender on both of those. The world's foremost global city and financial centre, even more so than London, where I live. Seat of the UN as well. When you say New York to people around the world (and I believe, around the United States as well) they will be more likely to think you mean the city. So I say to SSTflyer be bold, stick by the close. People can move review it if they like, but personally I thoroughly endorse the close as moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Your personal opinion is not consensus, and it is clear that there was no consensus above. That is all that truly matters when evaluating this close. The utter lack of notification to interested WikiProjects was appalling as well. If the solution is as obvious as you think, then your preferred outcome should have no trouble sailing through another week of (well-advertised) discussion. But, the numerous previous discussions that came to no consensus on this issue may be a clue that it is not as simple as "I'll bet most people think of the city first", with the sum of evidence being a Google search and a bunch of people's hunches. In keeping this policy-based, let's bring up some of the instructions for non-admin closers of RMs: Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period. It is plainly obvious, I would hope to even people who agree with the ultimate outcome, that there was no clear consensus for any of this, especially the ultimate outcome, which was barely mentioned let alone fully discussed (it should have been a separate proposal, really). Finally, the scope of this change is huge, and should be undertaken carefully, rather than 'boldly'. It should have been re-listed, and better advertised. Antepenultimate (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC) struck through innacurate reading of discussion, it was (confusingly) mentioned in the original proposal. Antepenultimate (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, my personal opinion isn't consensus, but equally a whole stack of oppose votes that don't reference our policies, and fail to explain why America's fourth most populous state is primary over its largest city, which is also the world's foremost city, don't constitute a consensus either. If there's some reason why New York state has to be the primary topic, then it should be possible to provide evidence that it satisfies either long term significance or common usage of the term. Instead the thrust of the arguments are just that we've always done it this way, and it's going to be hard work to sort out the links and other article titles. Well sure, but those aren't at the moment valid reasons for titling the article that way. Maybe you should try to change the policy if you feel that strongly about it.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
At no point was I suggesting a change of policy, so I don't know where that last bit comes from. Pretty much all of the strong evidence in support of this change has come out after the close, and I thank you and Wbm1058 for it, would that it could have been part of an official discussion so others may have had a chance to respond and further analyze. My entire point was that the close was premature, and based on half-baked discussion among limited participants. Even if the outcome I disagree with is ultimately affirmed, I think a decision of this magnitude should be allowed increased discussion with greater participation. That's how things are supposed to work around here. But that seems unlikely now, so I'll just drop it, I guess. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you can relate to this example. What's the primary topic for Ireland? I think countries take precedence over islands (I know the island is bigger geographically, but the country is more important politically). Really, there is no clear PT, so let's move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland. Just as most people don't say "New York City", they don't say "Republic of Ireland". I think this one's so controversial that it went to Arbcom. wbm1058 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
That particular instance had some troubles, which NYC, NYS, and the NYC area don't seem to have. Everyone agrees that New York (the city, state, metro ares, or even the county is the best place everywhere Face-smile.svg. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Has anyone ever considered Manhattan (New York County, New York) as yet another place that may also be called "New York"? When people outside of the country think about "New York", it's usually about the city. When they think about the city, it's usually about Manhattan. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Outline of the choice to be made[edit]

  • São Paulo, in English Wikipedia, is an article about the largest city in Brazil. It's located in São Paulo (state), the most populous state in Brazil.
  • São Paulo, in Portuguese Wikipedia, is about the state. The city is at São Paulo (cidade) (they speak Portuguese in Brazil).
  • I'd guess that if you picked out a random English-speaking person on the street, and asked them what state the city São Paulo was in, they couldn't tell you. All they know is that it's a big city in Brazil.
  • I think more Britons and Australians know what state New York City is in, but I don't know that for sure.

That in a nutshell, shows where the fault lines lie here. The locals are mostly content with the status quo. Those from overseas favor the city. I haven't reviewed all the discussions about this, but, in terms of Policy, there is no single "right answer". The guideline says "When a widely accepted English name exists for a place, we should use it." Great. New York is a widely accepted name for both. New York City is another widely accepted name for the city. WP:USPLACE gives guidance for naming populated places, cities, counties, metropolitan areas, minor civil divisions and neighborhoods, but no specific guidance for naming one of the 50 states. WP:PLACEDAB says "When there are conventional means of disambiguation in standard English, use them, as in Red River of the North and Red River of the South, and in New York City (to distinguish from the state of New York)." But, I suppose if there are no conventional means of disambiguation for the state, then the generic parenthetical disambiguating tag (state) is acceptable. Primary topic determination is subjective, but the page view stats don't make a strong case for the state as PT, I must concede. Has anyone found evidence of a mislinking problem, i.e. editors saving [[New York]] when they meant to link to the city? If that's a significant problem, then making the title a {{disambiguation}} page ensures these bad links will be corrected. I can guess though that if disambiguation is forced, there will be a lot of need to use NAVPOPS to change [[New York]] to [[New York (state)|New York]]. It might be worth it if there is a significant mislinking problem here. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any facts of figures, but instinctively I would imagine there are a ton of links to New York that are intended for the city. I've found a few right off, just looking at the first page of incoming links Bermuda#Economic and political development, Casa Milà#Architecture, Aeschylus#References, Auguste and Louis Lumière#First film screenings etc. I've never thought of this angle before, but actually we would catch these much easier with a dab page. That's not in itself a reason why we should or shouldn't, but it counters the "inconvenience" argument because we would gain a powerful new way to disambiguate.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, that was fast! Finding that many examples in just 19 mins. is enough to convince me. There must be hundreds, if not thousands of mislinks. I don't understand why more weight isn't given to examining internal links to determine primary topics. We so much more value what Google thinks [[blah]] means than what our own editors think it means. Myself, I give internal links more weight because they are more than subjective measures – they can be actual errors in need of repair. I see that no other admin has been sufficiently bold as to implement this close. I'll let it sit a bit longer, but I think I'll complete the move to (state) if nobody else does, on grounds this is harmless and helpful additional disambiguation, with the caveat of waiting a long time (months) before changing the resulting redirect (maybe never on that part). It's not common but we have cases like inverter, where the primary topic is a redirect to a disambiguated title – in this case, the naturally disambiguated power inverter. wbm1058 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, all of these "wrong" links are technically correct, as the city of New York is in the state of New York. Now the question is of precision: do we want the links to go to the state or to the city? I've changed many such links from the state to the city over the course of my three-plus years editing career. So maybe disambiguation is needed after all, but does the disambiguation page have to be at the title of New York? I'd rather have "New York" redirect to "New York (state)" and then change all the links to New York to either city or state. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:SPECIFICLINK: "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." Of course the article on the city has a link to the more general article about the state. wbm1058 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I knew that about WP:SPECIFICLINK. That comment was a poorly conceived joke, though. Face-sad.svg Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason for waiting a long time (months) before changing the resulting redirect (maybe never on that part) and every reason not to. The decision is that the state is not the primary meaning. It should be implemented.
Why would you rather have "New York" redirect to "New York (state)" and then change all the links to New York to either city or state? Especially given that this course of action will generate new, hard to detect mislinks (see below)? Don't we have enough work to do, without generating more needlessly? Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ease of searching is only one of the reasons for identifying the primary meaning. Ease of linking is also important. In most parts of the world, editors will write [[New York]] and assume that the link will be to New York, the city. If the resulting link is to a DAB, they will be notified on their talk page, but if it's to the state, we'll get a mislinking that is hard to detect in any automated way. So if there's no consensus as to the primary topic, the DAB is a good choice for the undisambiguated name. Personally I think a case can be made that the city is the primary meaning, but even if that's the case then having the DAB at the undisambiguated name is not too bad, while having the state there is a far bigger problem. And similarly if the state is the primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Backlinks[edit]

This link shows how many backlinks to New York there are. We can use this to track progress.

  • Documentation
  • 119,019 as of now. "Months" may be a bit if exaggeration, but probably at least a couple weeks for the job queue to clear the template links. wbm1058 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 99,891 as of now. wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 94,351 as of now. Noting that BD2412bot has been working on this (contributions) – wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    • A bot can only handle obvious cases (like "state of New York" or "city of New York"), and it only pulls 25,000 hits at a time to go through. This is going to require an immense manual effort. bd2412 T 16:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I have sampled and manually fixed some backlinks. In the process I noticed a pattern that can easily be automated: links to New York as the publisher's location parameter in citations, which invariably mean the city. See my bot request to handle those cases. — JFG talk 16:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Stats on my manual sample: 61 articles had links to New York meaning New York City, 67 meaning New York State and 19 had both kinds, so there were 54% of New York links pointing the wrong way, proving the lack of a primary topic. Massive cleanup required indeed… regardless of the outcome of the move review! — JFG talk 20:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
JFG Sorry to dig up and old topic, but one question - of those 61 links intended for the city, how many were from a publisher's location parameter? (And can anyone point me to where it is discussed how such links in citations benefit readers of an article, and are not an example of WP:OVERLINK?) Antepenultimate (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I have also found a good share of those. It is routine to link publisher cities, and would probably be just as much work, if not more, to unlink those entirely. bd2412 T 00:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not really about to mount a crusade to remove those links (they seem harmless, even if they're just linknoise), but anyone attempting to do a backlink analysis to better understand the primacy of a topic should probably discount or ignore publisher location links. They don't really demonstrate the importance of a topic the same way as links found within article prose, and are likely inflating the "mis-linked New York City" problem. I'm just curious how much of that inflation is occurring. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Antepenultimate: This is an interesting and legitimate question, so I took the trouble to check all the diffs I made on July 4 to correct New York links. Of the 80 articles with links meant for New York City (61 with city links only and 19 with city and state links), 65 had those links in the article text and 15 in citations (either with |location=New York or |place=New York). So, if we exclude the citation links, we still have 65 pages out of 132 pointing the wrong way, i.e. 49%, confirming my measurement that about half of the internal links to New York are meant for the city. — JFG talk 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
JFG, thank you very much for taking the time to check - it's good to know that the pub location links aren't skewing those original results too much. Antepenultimate (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This link shows how many backlinks to New York (state) there are.

Power outage[edit]

Side topic, but I had to respond to the comments above that "most of New York is currently blacked out" could only apply to the city as the entire state losing power would be "impossible". , you don't remember the Northeast blackout of 2003, which happened on a perfectly nice summer day? (But hot enough to cause significant A/C use) Caused by a software glitch. Now that we know an infected thumb drive took down a nuclear facility in Iran, it seems just a matter of time before some hackers do something similar with the power grid. wbm1058 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to interject here. Hackers did what?! That's really scary. But it's true that a lot of NY State's power comes from New York Power Authority, so a statewide blackout could be theoretically possible if all the NYPA workers went on strike and all the facilities were closed. However, that means that all these power companies' facilities would also have to go down. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
See Stuxnet. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Ooh, spooky. I hope terrorists, or even worse, Donald Duck and Goofy fooling around with stuff, aren't going to use it to shut down the whole state. That would be quite disastrous...
(@Wbm1058: thanks for the link, BTW.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The comment in question appeared to be just part of a jibe aimed at convincing others that I didn't know what I was talking about. I'm not too concerned by such rhetoric, although I did answer this particular attempt.
Beware of the term "impossible" wherever technology is involved... and also of those who use the term... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Time to execute[edit]

The close above is in favour of Moving the state away from the base title, and moving the disambiguation page to the base title. There is no consensus for having either the city or the state to be the primary topic, and some participants think a primary topic does not exist.

Unless there is to be a move review, this should now happen. If there is to be a move review, I would recommend meantime moving only the article on the state, and redirecting New York to the DAB. This will at least stop the further leakage of mislinks. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Except several people are against the closure, and SSTflyer has said he is open to relisting it. So now, I do not think it is time. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This will be a huge amount of work and if this somehow gets taken to MRV and overturned it will be all be an exceptionally massive waste of editor time. Basically I would say to the people who oppose this decision, file a MRV in the next say 48 hours or forever hold your peace. Filing a MRV now would be completely reasonable, waiting until major work has been done would be very disruptive. As an aside, if/when we do move this article we may as well move the dab page as well – redirecting to the dab achieves exactly the same thing except that it violates best practice. Jenks24 (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I am doubtful that some of the parties to this discussion (on either side) will ever really give up. At some stage we need to implement the decision. I'm not convinced anything is achieved by waiting even 48 hours... or another seven days, see WP:MR#Closing reviews, or in the worst case scenario, both, one after the other. I suppose we will see. And I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
History suggests that there wouldn't be a swift resolution to the MRV, even if one were to be filed. They usually go on for quite some time before being closed. But I do see Jenks's point that it would be a big waste of time to do all the disambiguating only to find it wasn't necessary because someone voids the move discussion result. I hope that an MRV won't be filed, and in my admittedly biased mind, I think that even if one is filed, the close would ultimately be endorsed for giving more weight to policy arguments, but again if people do want to challenge, now is the time to do it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the past discussions to make sure there aren't any points which have been missed. Should be back soon with my responses to the recent comments. Expect to be moving forward with this soon. wbm1058 (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding: Basically I would say to the people who oppose this decision, file a MRV in the next say 48 hours or forever hold your peace - You could probably extract such a promise from those who participated in this discussion. However, this discussion was so poorly advertised that many people who actually edit in this area will only become aware of this decision after they start seeing the (many) changes that will need to be made (I just happened to have one of the already-altered templates on my watchlist, the only reason I became aware of this). I don't think you can have any complete expectation that none of them will take this to MRV, and there is certainly grounds for a case, whether or not the decision is ultimately affirmed. Re-listing, and notifying the relevant WikiProjects, would possibly avoid some of this. Antepenultimate (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

. . .

Going back to the oldest discussions on this, as early as 2004 it was recognized that "Lots of the links to this article ought to be linked to New York City." However, as pointed out by Shereth in August 2008, the claim that more incoming links to [[New York]] are intended for the city is probably wrong. See User:Shereth/NYLinks. Past attempts to address this have failed because of poor implementation – generally they have attempted to do too much, too fast, which has triggered reversions. Clearly, and I believe there is consensus for this, there cannot be an article sitting on the [[New York]] page. This mislinking issue cannot be made to go away.

However, from that it does not follow that [[New York]] must be a disambiguation. Other options are (1) REDIRECT to New York (state) or (2) REDIRECT to New York City. The mislinking problem can be patrolled by bypassing all links to the [[New York]] redirect. The work to fix the mislinks should be done, and this work will not be wasted if [[New York]] remained a redirect to the nominal primary topic rather than moving the dab to the base name.

I note that when much of the previous discussion of this took place, the state of Washington was still at the base title. Washington moved to Washington (U.S. state) in May 2010 and then to Washington (state) in January 2011. I don't like the idea of telling the nice guys of that state that their state must be parenthetically disambiguated, while New York doesn't need to be. While the state's website does disambiguate with "NEW YORK STATE", as New York doesn't have a state university following the common naming convention as Oregon State, Montana State, Michigan State and Ohio State, Washington does and thus Washington State is a disambiguation. So I support using the parenthetical, rather than natural disambiguation.

Thus I endorse the decision to move New YorkNew York (state). If no objections are immediately forthcoming, I will do this shortly, or another admin is welcome execute this as well. Then the work of disambiguating and fixing the mislinks can begin. This process will take time. It will go faster if the nice guys who do this sort of work get some help. Once we get the rest of the templates changed, if we wait for the job queue bots to do their thing, we'll have a better idea of how much work is really needed. It seems daunting now, but might not be quite as bad as it looks.

Once that work has been completed we will have some new data, and be in a better position to assess the question of whether there's a nominal primary topic. I reserve the right to review that piece of this, and suggest editors show some patience here. I think past attempts to force this question have been at least partially responsible for keeping the more important need to avoid mislinks unaddressed until now. Yes, Schoharie, this is a hairy issue, but it need not turn into another Ireland. Maybe, as with Chihuahua eventually the disambiguation moves over the base name. Bow Wow! But, I'd rather not be a Speculator until we have better data as a result of the mislinks cleanup. Tricks such as using AWB to:

  • find County]], [[New York]] and
  • replace with County]], [[New York (state)|New York]]

and

  • find |subdivision_name1 = [[New York]]
  • replace with |subdivision_name1 = [[New York (state)|New York]]

should help. If we find more than a few hundred meeting that critria, yes a bot request could be used to fix them. wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If the final decision is going to be to leave New York as a primary redirect to New York (state), then we shouldn't even bother to move it, because that would violate our usual naming rules concerning primary topics. From a reader point of view, the (state) would be redundant, as the main page was redirecting there anyway. I appreciate the value of being able to sort the incoming links, but you can still do that exercise with the state article here, it's just harder work because you don't have the catch all of being able to say nothing links to the base page, unless you point everything to the redirect page anyway. Editor convenience has never been one of the WP:CRITERIA. As I see it, and I'm attempting to be objective here, despite my personal belief that there is no primary topic, the move close above is not just to move this state article, but to assert that there's no primary topic between the city and the state, which implies that the dab page ends up here. Now that part can wait for a few weeks if necessary, until all the incoming links are fixed, but if there's some chance that the dab page won't be ultimately moved, then we need to establish that now, by MRV or any other means, not wait for a further decision at an unspecified point in the future, once a whole load of work has been done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:CRITERIA isn't concerned with redirects or primary topics. New York fails the precision criteria because the title does not unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. I think we have consensus on that point. We add the parenthetical to make the title sufficiently precise: New York (state). wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
A base name may redirect to the primary topic, for example the base name inverter redirects to the primary topic power inverter, as I believe I mentioned above. wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the two cases are comparable. Inverter redirects to power inverter because the latter is the WP:COMMONNAME for the device, whereas simply calling it "inverter" is a less common way of referring to that device. Similarly, Obama redirects to Barack Obama because (a) we almost always name people FirstName SurName, and (b) I would guess Barack Obama is a more common way to refer to him than simply Obama, even though he is the primary topic for Obama. I don't think either of these redirects exists solely to satisfy precision requirements. Indeed, if that were the case, we would never have a primary topic at the base name. But the whole point of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that in essence it supercedes the needs for precision, because the concept concerned has greater long term significance or is much more commonly ought than any others. Apple is not a redirect to Apple (fruit), despite the fact that it could clearly refer to either a fruit or a tech company. Instead, Apple is a fruit despite those precision issues, because it's been decided that is the primary topic. Similarly if New York state is decided to be the primary topic it has to reside at New York because New York (state) satisfies neither WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:NATURALDIS.
Just to be clear, I believe that I and most others are acting under the assumption that the discussion above *is* a primary topic discussion, and the close as it stands explicitly asserts that there is no primary topic. Hence if this close remains the same after the end of the WP:MRV or a relist, then the dab page must eventually be moved to the base location. There would be no need for further discussion on that point if the move closure is endorsed. @Jenks24: does that match your understanding of how this process would play out? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. If the MRV is endorsed, the dab page will need to be moved to the base title as per the close and WP:MALPLACED. There would be nothing stopping future RMs if someone wanted to contend that the city is the primary topic (or even that the whole thing should be reversed and the state should become the primary topic again). Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

London Paris New York[edit]

Does MR really have a snowball's? Have a Google on London, Paris, New York and ask seriously, in most of the English-speaking world, what does New York mean? A look at Paris (disambiguation), London (disambiguation) and Washington (disambiguation) might also help perspective. Finally a look at this excellent article might help cleanse the palate (whether you agree with it or not) or failing that try this.

There are T-shirts in Australia that read London, Paris, New York, Turramurra (or whatever your favourite suburb is in place of Turramurra) and I'm sure they exist in other countries as well (if not there are some business opportunities).

We have I think established that there is a dialect of English in which New York means New York State, and that there are some Wikipedians whose strong good faith belief is that this applies to all or at least most English speakers. But there is also a rough consensus that this is not the case.

The question of whether New York City is the primary meaning of New York is of relatively little importance, and has not been settled (and I wish those who want to spend time on it the best of luck). But the more important question has been well and truly discussed. There are several ways of prolonging this discussion further, but none of them stand any chance of improving Wikipedia, in my opinion.

IMO there is no prospect of overturning that hard-won consensus, and it should now be respected. Andrewa (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The meaning there is obvious by the context. I can make a statement like, the cost of living index is high for Massachusetts, New York and California, while comparatively low for Mississippi and Arkansas. Who is reasonably going to think that I'm comparing an outlier city with states? The question is, what do people think of when there is no context provided? wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree 100%. And this is hard to measure... because there is always some context. Which is another reason the discussion has been so long and involved. But the basic point is, we seem to have a decision on the most important issue so far as providing the best reader experience is concerned. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I suppose the minimal context is derived from the reader's location, to some extent.
One point regarding "reader experience". I suppose there are different criteria for subjectively determining that. One often-mentioned criteria is minimizing the number of clicks needed to get to the desired topic. If they are using the search box, they already get a drop-down with the most likely targets. Right now New York is #1 on the search suggestion list, and New York City is #2. Moving to New York (state) will be helpful to the search experience, as it will remove any possible doubt (not that seeing New York City immediately below didn't likely already do that for most readers). It will be interesting to see whether the order in the search list flips after the move. But, disregarding the search box, if we make New York a disambiguation, that guarantees that every reader will need to make another click. If we redirect to either New York (state) or New York City then that means perhaps half the readers will not need to make another click, but those that do may need to make two more clicks. wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
We already have hatnotes on both this article and the New York City article that redirect to the other article. No doubt New York should not redirect to the city, because the state of New York is well-known in the English-speaking world, and we aren't all foreigners who think "Manhattan" when we hear "New York". (Also, it would make some links, like Yonkers, New York, make no sense if "New York" redirects to "New York City". Yonkers, New York (two links) also makes sense as Yonkers, New York (one link), but Yonkers is among the majority of New York localities that are not in NYC.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You say No doubt New York should not redirect to the city, because the state of New York is well-known in the English-speaking world, and we aren't all foreigners who think "Manhattan" when we hear "New York". I think there is doubt, and can't see consensus either way on that, but that's a question for a new section. This RM has established that it shouldn't redirect to the State. Personally, I think that the city is the primary meaning (so disagree with you on that), but that it's acceptable to move the DAB to the undisambiguated name as if there's no primary meaning. That should happen short term, and if we can't get consensus as to whether there is a primary meaning, then the DAB should be at the undisambiguated name long term. Andrewa (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewa: I see your point, but I'm not quite sure the city is the primary topic. It depends on your proximity to NYC. If you are within NYC, as ten million people probably are now (it's a workday here), then "New York" definitely refers to the state. If you're on Long Island, northern New Jersey, most of Connecticut, or Upstate New York (not Upstate New York City), maybe you'd refer to the city as "New York," but you'd get a lot of confused people asking you, "where you from?". If you live in the rest of the U.S., "New York" can refer equally to the city or the state. If you are outside the U.S., "New York" almost definitely refers to the city, unless otherwise stated. So maybe a disambiguation page would, indeed, be the best way forward. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm not claiming here that NYC is primary. That's a topic for another discussion; We have quite enough to talk about here without trying to decide that too. What I am claiming, strongly, is that New York State is not primary. And I'm even claiming that we have a rough consensus on that, and have had for some time. If I keep restating it, it's just to try to keep our focus on the issue at hand. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Context matters. In many contexts, it refers to the city, the metro area, or even the borough of Manhattan. In many more, though—especially in the U.S., where a third of the English-speaking population lives—it refers to the state, especially if you're trying to refer to a settlement like Buffalo, New York. And for people in the U.S., Buffalo is quite obviously not in New York City. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • So, this is going ahead, even among significant opposition? Looks like there was no consensus, which means no consensus to move anything. There would have to be consensus that there isn't a primary topic to go ahead with this, and that's not what I'm seeing from the RM. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, there doesn't have to be consensus that there isn't a primary topic. To move the article on New York State away from the name New York and change the resulting redirect, it's enough that we establish that New York State is not the primary topic... whether or not there is one. And we do have consensus on that. Andrewa (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
In order to move a page, there needs to be consensus that a page needs to be moved. There was no consensus here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the first part, but see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus. The need to move the page follows logically and according to policy from the (very) rough consensus that NY State is not primary. Andrewa (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, the policy-based rationale for moving this is that New York fails the WP:precision criteria of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy because that title does not sufficiently distinguish from New York City. I agree that the "consensus" regarding primary topic is marginal at best; I encourage a new discussion on that when changing the New York redirect becomes feasible. Right now it's not, until the necessary preparation work is completed in the background. I have not changed, nor do I endorse a change in primary topic. The primary topic is still the state. wbm1058 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tavix, and am surprised at administrators nonetheless proceeding. There was no consensus, this was closed admitting no consensus, and therefore read WP:NOCONSENSUS that after such an event, the long-standing title returns. This evidently needs more notification and discussion, there's a boatload of New York and Northeast editors who haven't said a word here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The admin is acting on the consensus on one issue: There is a rough consensus that the primary meaning, if there is one, is not the State. That's perfectly valid, and improves Wikipedia. Sorry! Andrewa (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The primary topic is still the state. No, that's a dead issue. There's no evidence at all supporting it, nor any policy or guideline, just some strong opinions.
The necessary preparation work...... Fascinated to hear exactly what this is, and when the change will become feasible... what are the criteria? The sooner the redirect is changed, the less work there will be. The redirect should change now. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Noting how Britannica disambiguates this, though it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us. Andrewa, I am quite aware of your position on this, and your continued filibustering is getting annoying. Somehow I've let myself wade into the kind of controversy that I generally avoid. It's not fun feeling heat from both sides. I get the sense that some don't care at all if we have hundreds of "New York" internal links that are not going to their intended targets. That makes our encyclopedia inaccurate, but my sense is you don't care about that. All you seem to care about is that the big bold title at the top is what your POV thinks it should be. If y'all insist on "all or nothing" I'll just revert my little concession to you, though I would like to see those internal links fixed that you don't seem to care about. Ɱ has a point, perhaps your "hard-won consensus" was won by not advertising this to our contingent of NY-based editors, who probably edit NY-related articles far more than the average European or Australian-based editor, and who just dismiss such discussions as "already decided" – until they are blindsided to find that they're not. wbm1058 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you see my contributions as a filibuster, and that you've concluded that I don't care about other issues, and that I'm pushing a POV. But I'm even sorrier that you've made a little concession to me. Please, in future, assess my arguments, and act on them alone.
And I'm truly sorry that I'm annoying you. But I also think that what I have posted deserves a hearing. All of it. If I have been repetitive (and I have) it has been in response to arguments which were in themselves repetitive. If I seem to be writing walls of text, it's because I'm trying to help others to understand. No more.
There's nothing in policy or guidelines that says we should advertise this to NY-based editors, or that they should have any greater say than others on article names, as far as I can see. Happy to be proven wrong on that. Wikiproject members should watch articles of interest to them, and advise others via legitimate channels, avoiding canvassing of course. I preach caution with that line of argument.
It's not my consensus (if it exists). Yes, it's my claim that it exists, and that we should move on. (Sorry if that's restating my position.)
Again, I'm truly sorry to have caused discomfort. This was never going to be easy. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am flabbergasted that such a drastic move could have been undertaken without giving me the courtesy of even informing me of this planned execution. I am one of the primary contributors to this page - never mind where I'm actually based. Had I known about this discussion, I would have expressed my unequivocal and vehement opposition to such a move. The status quo with the appropriate hatnotes has served very well all of these years. I feel that this should be reverted pending a true consensus being reached - which is NOT the case!! Castncoot (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense[edit]

Why was this article moved with New York still re-directing here?? Did the user who made the move want New York to re-direct to New York City?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See the (lengthy) discussion above! But (at the risk of repeating myself) New York should redirect to the DAB (unless we can get consensus that it should redirect to New York City, which seems unlikely). Better still, move the DAB to New York (undisambiguated). Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am the one who started the whole discussion move. From what I said in the RM, New York does not have a primary meaning. It could equally mean the state (most US citizens think of the state when they say New York) or it could mean the city (foreign citizens usually think of the city when they hear New York), so I believe that "New York" should point to the dab page and not to the state. There is no primary meaning. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 05:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
User:CookieMonster755, I think the observation about US citizens vs others is so important (although I don't think it's quite that simple) that I've linked to that comment from the MR. [1] Hope that's OK with everyone! Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
New York currently has over 25,000 incoming links. Those links must be fixed before this link can be changed to something other than a redirect to the longstanding primary topic. bd2412 T 23:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@BD2412: see #Implementation and #Backlinks. They have been warned. wbm1058 (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
More importantly, any such mass changes should be held off on until the move review is completed, lest they all need to be undone. In other words, BD, I'd suggest halting the bot for now. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I am going to limit the bot to cases where the link needs to be retargeted to New York City. Those need to be fixed either way, and they tend to cluster with references to NYC institutions, other major cities, or places of publication. bd2412 T 16:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The population of the New York metropolitan area is over 20 million people, but a lot of those live in New Jersey and Connecticut. The entire state of New York has less than 20 million residents. But, if you throw out the out-of-state "New Yorkers", and limit "the city" to just Yonkers / Westchester and the close-in Long Island suburbs, then roughly half the state does not live in "the city". To anyone who doesn't live in the city, "New York" generally means the state. Upstate is "Main Street" New York. Once the Empire State, proud factory to the world. A lot of those towns are shells of what they were at their peak. It won't surprise me if a lot of them vote for Trump, though Hillary is most likely winning the state as a whole.

It will take a while for some to get used to the idea that Wikipedia has a "worldwide" point-of-view. Yes, New York increasingly begins and ends with Wall Street. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Often living in Westchester anyway, New York still generally means the state. Manhattanites and generally city folks have a narrow view of New York, often even excluding the Bronx. It's pretty strange. I wish there were more to go on than personal testimonies; some sort of survey or study, though perhaps that's why such a broad consensus needs to be reached. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@: I thought these Manhattanites and general city folks excluded Staten Island? Oh well. Not many people really pay attention to Stinkin' Island, anyway. Strange. (And there was a secession referendum for Staten Island once, though. Apparently Staten Stinkin' Island didn't like to be part of New York.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't get a chance to voice my opinion in the RM, but I would have been holheartedly against it. I'm very surprised that the closer came to the conclusion that he did.JOJ Hutton 14:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • All please note the instructions at MR: While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. [2] (Emphasis as on that page.) If the decision is to relist (as seems likely), then is the time to re-argue the case. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If it's relisted, then others will be able to opine in the RM discussion. That's all I'm saying... -- Tavix (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. But I just thought that needed clarifying. MR is often cluttered with arguments that really belong in RM. And we are likely to have a long enough discussion there without straying off-focus. Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is outrageous! Nobody bothered to even inform me about this disastrous move! I wholeheartedly disagree with this move, which has NO consensus. There was nothing wrong with the status quo, which has been there for years. Castncoot (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And nobody bothered to inform me, either. Get over it. There is a move review happening right now. Chime in there. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 07:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Castncoot raises a valid point. I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Notify substantial contributors to articles? wbm1058 (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, if I sounded rude. I fully support a relist or overturn to the "no consensus" position. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Foreshadowing[edit]

I'm hoping that either the MR will endorse the close as moved to New York (State), or that the relisting will produce the same result. But there's a risk that the move will be reopened and then eventually closed as Not moved, no consensus.

In that event I think the following actions would be reasonable:

1. Have a discussion as to whether the higher-level jurisdiction criterion should, in this instance, be allowed to override the two criteria explicitly suggested in the guideline. I have started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#higher-level jurisdiction criterion. Depending on the outcome:

  • If there is consensus that it should not, then I intend to proceed to step 2.
  • If there is consensus that it should, then I will conclude that the primary meaning of New York is in fact the state, and modify my voting accordingly.
  • If there is no consensus, then I'll probably leave it to others to decide what to do next if anything. I may get involved in things others initiate, or not.

2. Have a discussion on whether New York State is the primary meaning of New York. Depending on the outcome:

  • If there is consensus that it is not, then proceed to step 3.
  • If there is consensus that it is, then I will modify my voting accordingly.
  • If there is no consensus, then I'll probably leave it to others to decide what to do next if anything.

3. Initiate a new RM based on the consensus that New York State is not the primary meaning of New York.

I hope that's a reasonable approach.

Of course its success would depend on goodwill and focus. There have already been a number of off-topic posts at the discussion I initiated in step 1. Obviously these can derail the process, either accidentally or deliberately.

I foreshadow these moves in the hope that they won't be necessary. Long term I think the logic of having New York point to what most of the English-speaking world mean by New York, in conformity to our well-established naming conventions, will win out. But the RM and MR have both been heated and messy.

My personal view of course is that New York should be an article on NYC, that having it as a DAB is acceptable (and let's move on), but that having the state there makes a mockery of our guidelines. But that it's not worth busting a blood vessel over either, and should be decided logically and by consensus. Andrewa (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That last paragraph neatly sums up what I was about to write. If someone says they're in New York, I wouldn't start looking in Albany. Certes (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Certes: See WP:NWFCTM (a subsection of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Antepenultimate (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree that WP:NWFCTM is relevant, in fact I think that both sides of this discussion should reread it carefully.
But without wanting to put words into User:Certes' mouth, User:Antepenultimate, I took that to mean that neither would many others think it might mean Albany. And that's a valid point, if true, under the usage criterion. And I think it is true. Do you? Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Geesh. We're talking about 54,000+ square miles. If I wanted to find this person, I would first ask where in New York they were, before I started wandering aimlessly. And, no, I wouldn't assume they were in the city unless there was some context in our conversation from which to make that assumption. wbm1058 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm going on a 50 mile backpacking trip for my holiday. Oh, where are you backpacking? In New York. Great. Sounds like fun.
I'm going to see the Reds playing on the road next month. Where? In New York. Great. Mets or Yankees?
I'm editing the Wikipedia article about New York. Awesome. Which one? wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems again to be a dialect difference. If I said to someone "I'm going to visit my cousin who lives in New York" with their having no previous knowledge of where my (hypothetical) cousin lives, I would expect them to understand New York city. In some cases, obviously from this discussion, I would be wrong. Language is like that. The question is, what is the common understanding? Is it New York City, or New York State, or isn't there one?
I can see arguments both ways as to whether there is one. But if there is a primary meaning, I can see no evidence at all that it's New York state. That being so, I can see many procedural arguments that can and do delay the decision to move the New York State article away from the (precious) name New York.
But unless it's the primary meaning, it shouldn't be there. Should it? Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
If you were an Upstate resident speaking to a fellow Upstate resident in someplace Upstate, then "I'm going to visit my cousin who lives in New York" would likely be understood to mean the city, but even then, you would be more likely to say "New York City" or "the city" I think. Because if it were somewhere else (Rochester, Utica) you would say so. Out of state, there is an intuitive need to be more specific; you would be more likely to say "New York City" or "Upstate New York", or "Jamestown, New York".
Again, context matters. If you're talking backpacking, "New York" means Upstate (think Adirondacks, Catskills, Taconics)... Who won New York's electoral votes? That's about entire state. New York has a nice subway system. Now we mean the city. So the big question is, in the context of an encyclopedia, what do you expect the scope of the article titled New York to be? I think the majority of New York residents would say, the (entire) state. I understand that foreigners have different expectations in this regard. Most, if not all, of the 50 states have disambiguation pages (I was a bit surprised to find that to be the case). We don't put Michigan at Michigan (state)... I'm a bit surprised to see that's not a red link, though there is a Michigan (disambiguation) page. I could imagine some Michigan residents getting a little upset to see that "(state)" "defacing" the title... New Yorkers should be more understanding, but some of that emotion seems to be in play here. Hmm, Victoria (Australia), not Victoria (state), it seems like they're saying that In Australia, the state is the primary topic for Victoria, not the queen or some girl's name. New York (New York), New York (United States), lol. wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Which suggests to me that in this case there may be no primary meaning. But it doesn't lend one shred of credence to the claim that the primary meaning is New York State. Does it? Have I missed something? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You ask what an encyclopedia should have at that title... well Britannica has no article titled New York. I guess that's their equivalent of a dab page - when you query it you just get search results including New York (state, United States) and New York City (New York, United States). [3]  — Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I made this observation earlier, back in § London Paris New York, "it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us." Note that the New York City article has a subtitle "New York, United States" which indicates where New York City is. And the article about the state. which is at the Primary Topic title New York, has a subtitle "State, United States" which tells us what and where it is. This is a grey zone; observe that the URL does include "state" in lower case: www.britannica.com/place/New-York-state – Frankly Britannica handles this more elegantly than our current software allows us to. wbm1058 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
They actually have nothing sitting at https://www.britannica.com/place/New-York – this may be a way to ensure that their editors get it right (the city is at https://www.britannica.com/place/New-York-City) – wbm1058 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, Ireland in Britannica is about the country, and they don't put a subtitle on that article, so they feel no need to have a subtitle like (Country, Ireland) to say what and where it is. As far as I can tell, they do not have a separate article about the island itself, just an article on Northern Ireland. And it seems that all searches land you on the search results page. So the fact that searching New York didn't go directly to the article about the state should not be interpreted to mean that Britannica doesn't consider it a "primary topic". They just may not have such a construct in the same way that we do. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Especially that there's no article on the island or Ireland. Maybe they figure the overlap between that and the Republic article is enough not to justify.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I apologise for making a vague and flippant remark before going away for a week, though it has produced a useful discussion. Yes, taken literally, what I wrote is irrelevant per WP:NWFCTM. I meant to imply that State is not much more likely than City to be the topic sought when a reader searches for New York, so shouldn't be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is City much more likely? From other responses, I get the impression "yes, except for readers in the USA", so the decision between a redirect to New York City and a dab page seems marginal to me. (I am British, with no connection to New York city or state.) Certes (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Well said... but what matters now is presenting evidence of this when the new RM opens on Friday. (And don't jump the gun, the admin who set it up has enough to do as is.) Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Refocus[edit]

Most of the above relates to step 2 (Is New York State the primary meaning of New York, or not?), which may not even occur.

To help with step 1, I've started an essay at wp:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. See Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that this new page you have created will over the long run affirm the legitimacy of the status quo of the past 10+ years, with the state being entitled "New York" and the city being entitled "New York City". In any case, New York City is a direct progeny of New York, being classified on the city's own page as one of the Regions of New York, so it's a moot point anyway. This misguided move needs to be overturned, and at the very least, it should be reverted and re-listed so that everybody who has commented on this page's move closure review will be on equal footing to start a comment process. Castncoot (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I hope you are right about the new page at WP:HLJC. As said above, if we can build consensus supporting this principle, then it will solve everything. And it's not a bad principle. It's just not IMO what past consensus has supported, and I don't expect support for it now. We will see. Andrewa (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Votes not to move and objections to lack of notification (off-topic)[edit]

Placing my vote to oppose the move here, removing from the Survey Comment field, which I didn't see until today and misunderstood why it was still editable:
  • Oppose the move. New York City is classified as one of the Region of New York and is therefore a direct progeny of New York. There are over 11 million people who live in New York who don't live in New York City. There are also roughly 50,000 square miles of geographic features in New York, outside of New York City. It's not just about population. Castncoot (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move. For all the reasons eloquently stated above by User:Castncoot. A move this drastic should have been repeatedly aired on this talk page, the village pump, and talk pages for obviously related articles like U.S. state three or four times before doing anything to make sure everyone who needed to know was duly notified, so that a solid consensus could be established one way or the other. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Castncoot, User:Coolcaesar, I don't think this is the place to support or oppose the move. If it's relisted, then is the time and place. (But please don't fix it now, that just makes it more confusing. If you like we can just hide both those votes and this comment... would that be agreeable to you both?) Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, what you should do is mark the above votes with a box that says that there is no vote in progress unless and until another is listed and don't add any more for now. But I don't think hiding them is the solution either. I would support relisting the proposed move and publicizing it far more thoroughly. It looks like to me that you didn't work that hard to build consensus on an issue this important. If it were an issue I cared about, I certainly would have posted it on the talk pages for all the major articles related to U.S. states (state governments, state legislatures, state supreme courts, etc.) and repeatedly posted it to the village pump over several weeks to ensure that everyone who needed to know was actually notified. For example, I have always adhered to the positions that the U.S. state of Georgia is far more important in every way than an impoverished former republic of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. city of San Jose, California is far more important than the capital of a developing country in Central America, so it makes no sense that Georgia and San Jose both point to disambiguation pages. If I ever wanted to open that Pandora's box, I would certainly go above and beyond the call of duty to publicize the proposed article moves first in order to make a solid record that anyone who needed to know was notified and had a full and fair opportunity to voice their opinion.
Thus, as far as I am concerned, there was no true consensus in this instance to begin with. What is deeply troubling to me is that you did not publicize this move properly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Coolcaesar: Just adding a subheading to separate this from the main discussion will do the trick as far as I am concerned... I hope that is acceptable to you both. Done above.
Now, about the lack of notification... Do you really think this was my job? The move was by my recollection already in the backlog when I first became involved.
Or, do you think it was the job of the nom? Should we update WP:RM to make this explicit? There's been some discussion of this elsewhere, and no consensus that it's required.
Or was it the job of the closer? Several have suggested this in one way or another. See this diff for my thoughts, and fell free to reply here. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

MR result[edit]

Well, we're going to have a new and hopefully neater RM discussion, see below. No surprise there, and we need to see how it goes. There is every possibility that the closers of that RM will make recommendations that affect my foreshadowed program.

But it, and particularly WP:HLJC and WT:HLJC, may well be referenced in the new RM. It would be good to keep discussion on the HLJC on those pages, IMO, rather than cluttering the new RM with side issues. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This "HLJC" thing has no consensus, is not backed up by existing articles, and is merely an essay on a likely minority viewpoint at the moment. I suggest that it is kept out of the future discussion, since it contradicts the current wording of WP:PTOPIC. On that subject, you did ask me a question about this yesterday Andrewa, and I will hopefully get back to you on when I have a chance. I don't know if it's ever been explicitly rejected for the narrow subset of cases where the subentity has the same name as the higher entity, but the higher entity is not primary. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Amakuru, Agree that it would be far better if this non-criterion was kept out of the new RM completely, but I don't see any chance of achieving that. In my opinion User:Castncoot will appeal to it and the related concept of "progeny" articles. I could be wrong and hope I am... we will see.
Thanks for your time and trouble. Don't spend too much time looking for cases, but any that come readily to mind I would find helpful. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well fair enough, I see what you mean, but I would hope that contributions referring to rules that don't have the community's consensus, and indeed, have never been written down at all, until you and Castncoot started penning the essay in question. A parallel case was the essay now at User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle; this used to be at WP:Yogurt rule, and its author, Born2cycle would frequently cite it in move discussions. Eventually other editors got annoyed that a rule that hadn't passed the community's consensus test was being repeatedly used, and had the essay userfied. If you want my opinion on HLJC, I think it applies by default in many cases because very often the higher level entity will be primary topic anyway. But in other cases, such as Lima vs Lima Province, or Lagos vs Lagos State, a major city is either primary or co-primary with its containing HLJC; I think New York is in that situation, and the HLJC is just being used as a special case in this instance, to justify NY state as primary when there's little other evidence that it's primary. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree.
I'd forgotten about the Yoghurt Principle, but I was one of the editors it annoyed! I don't think I evknew it had been (finally) userfied, but you might note that I've suggested that as the possible afte of draft:New York and it might happen to HLJC essay too. 23:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
At some point, those who support or oppose moving this page should get to work on their respective arguments on the subpage. bd2412 T 00:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Confused as to which subpage... the new RM is not yet open as I understand it? Andrewa (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(As per my talk page), the RM is not open for voting; this is the time for writing out the arguments for the move (which policies you believe are applicable, what results show from page views, incoming link statistics, usage and citations in the outside world). Opposers should take this time to craft their own arguments in the following section. This should read like a proposal for each, not a discussion within those sections. The discussion will take place in the discussion section when the initial statements are finished, and the proposal is formally launched. bd2412 T 00:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you. Andrewa (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Move review closure[edit]

I have closed the move review as overturn and relist. I have created a dedicated subpage at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, for a new, complete, and well-advertised discussion on this topic to be initiated one week from today. I have relied on Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request for guidance in structuring this process. I strongly recommend enlisting a three-admin panel for closure of the discussion (or a panel of two admins and a non-admin volunteer who is well-versed in move discussions). Of course, this is just my judgment on the matter, and the conditions or structure of such a discussion are subject to community determinations that they should be carried out other than as I have proposed. Please make appropriate notices to any affected projects. bd2412 T 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Has anyone seriously proposed "a broad concept page on geographic uses of "New York" at this title"? If so, fine, but I'd say that option could probably be safely removed if not. SnowFire (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It has been discussed some on this page. It's really up to those who write the actual move proposal to determine what options they want to put on the table. bd2412 T 00:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
See also Talk:New York (disambiguation)#Broad concept article proposal. PaleAqua (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I proposed the BCA it but will not be voting for it... I thought it had been proposed by another user but I had misunderstood them. It seems to me that it's a far better solution than the DAB for several reasons, only one of which is that it addresses most of the arguments put by those opposing, and particularly by those appealing to the HLJC and its variants. So it's my second pick (my first is that the primary meaning is NYC, but that may well not get sufficient support). Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned[edit]

I am concerned that despite widespread support for relisting, there has so far been no input at all at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Argument and evidence in opposition to moving the page, which has been open for some days but will shortly be closed and the new move opened for discussion.

I have posted three other heads-ups so far, here, here and here. Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As I understood it, we're not supposed to post anything there until the 14th.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Your understanding is incorrect. The proposal is supposed to be written now, and should be completed by the 14th. The discussion on the proposal will begin then. bd2412 T 19:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If more time is needed to craft the proposal (and for those opposed to the proposal to outline their points of opposition), we can put this process off for some additional time. bd2412 T 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
yes, I think that would be a good idea. Your wording last week clearly said that nothing would take place until the 14th. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I was also misled by the initial wording of the new RM, and of the notice of it. I think it's clear on the RM page now that bd2412 has added some section hatnotes, but that only works if people can be motivated to go there and read them before the 14th. So, what other heads-ups are required, do you think? Are the three I have posted (see above) adequately worded?
I am particularly concerned about User:Castncoot who was reverted [4] on the 8th and hasn't edited anything since the 9th, so they may be missing out on this clarification. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
True, the "oppose" side is lacking on evidence at the moment, and much as I disagree with their arguments, it would also not be fair to go ahead without them having a chance to say something. You've pinged Castncoot on their talk page, and here, so not sure there's too much more you can do if they're off wiki. An email perhaps?
As for me, I will try and add a few things before tomorrow evening, although generally I quite like what yuo've already written. You've summed up the argument that there's no primary topic quite nicely. I will maybe scout around for some more third party evidence. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Per the above, I have extended the launch date to the 18th. bd2412 T 13:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Good move, I think it's now all under control. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Castncoot is now back editing, it was just some real life commitments, they've both responded to my heads-up and added some oppose arguments (as well as finding time to get on with our core business of improving articles). All good, and thanks for responding to my nervous nellying. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, real life has a way of doing that sometimes! Just wondering perhaps, would it be better not to introduce a Discussion 2 as outlined, unless Discussion 1 were to lead to a move? I'm concerned that the very presence of that second discussion as outlined could at the very least confuse the issue and at worst introduce bias, as opposers of the move in the first place would be at a loss for words as to what to even state in that spot. A suggestion might be to remove or close that second discussion until/unless it becomes relevant. Best, Castncoot (talk)
If there is a preference to structure it that way, I see no great detriment. It would be nice to finish things up in one process and get right to fixing any link fallout arising from a potential page move, but there is no deadline. bd2412 T 02:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Ya think? Visitors have a clue what is going on here. There is no mention of any upcoming action on the New York page (because the RfM is somehow "not open yet"). If there actually 'is' such a thing as an RfM that is "not open yet" (how absurd), then WHY is there no hatnote on the New York page saying "an RfM will be opened on..."? Even this Talk page glaringly lacks the needed new section for the second (July) RfM. The section "Requested move 18 July 2016" should already be there, even though it is "in the future", because someone has imagineered the possibility of a future-dated RfM. Even though there is an article named "Talk:New York/July 2016 move request" (which should actually be named "Talk:Requested move 18 July 2016", no?), it should have a section "Requested move 18 July 2016" (regardless), so that someone has an idea that something is (or will be) going on. I see rampant ineptitude and possible conflict of interest (one of the admins runs a bot that has no stop button). I congratulate all on making a quagmire of this. The only plus point here is that all these unnecessary and chaotic mis-actions, all this grinding to fix something that isn't broken, instead of doing something useful, won't actually make Wikipedia unusable. (I would like to put Donald Trump on this task, but only because it will destroy him.) The best response is to walk away. Editors and administrators, just walk away from this. No need to act, because there is no need to decide. Throw WP to the dogs. I see issue after issue mis-handled in ways like this one, for example 7-day notice posted one day before, then action taken, and no one will revert it on principle because a great one mis-used his authority. Rule that, all-wise admins.
This action started with "Requested move 9 June 2016". SSTFlyer closed and re-closed (is there even such a thing?) the Move request on 18 June. Next, the outcome was controverted and listed at Move review, on 21 June (mentioned here, just above). Next, bd2412 closed that Move review as Overturn and relist (never made clear whether "overturn" means full undo or just revert to undecided), on 7 July. The new RfM was pre-listed for initial discussion at Talk:New_York/July 2016 move request (instead of on this page), on 7 July. The "re-listing" (new Move request) will not be "filed" and real discussion begin (there, not here) until 14 July 22:00 18 July 2016 (is there even such a thing as a deferred RfM? (And they're actually deleting comments!)). -A876 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Overturn" always means a return to the status quo ante. Relisting was the consensus result of participants in the discussion. I don't see how a deferred RM (something that we have done several times for high-profile discussions) is in any way worse than an RM initiated with no advance notice at all. As for publicizing the discussion, that is up to the participants. Obviously it is being discussed here, and it has already been noticed on the WikiProject talk page. We never hatnote the actual articles for RM discussions. bd2412 T 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2016[edit]

Both sides having had abundant time to address this proposal, the discussion is now closed pending review by the closing panel for a final determination of consensus. bd2412 T 23:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– See Talk:New York/July 2016 move request Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal is taking has taken place at: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request

Note: The closure of this discussion will be conducted by a panel consisting of Future Perfect at Sunrise, Niceguyedc, and Newyorkbrad. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


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.

RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?[edit]

Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"? — JFG talk 10:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Several long-wided discussions have taken place over 11 years to ascertain whether New York City or New York State should be titled "New York", or whether this should be a disambiguation page. The most recent debate has seen extensive participation and the appointed three-person panel has not delivered a common closing statement more than a month after the discussion was hatted. The question of primary topic was one of several arguments in the discussion, however it has not been answered conclusively: editors are divided on whether there is indeed a primary topic for the "New York" term, and if there is one, whether it is the state or the city. The goal of this RFC is to settle this question.

Feel free to refer to any argument previously developed, or dig out new ones, however please focus your answer on the question asked, Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?, answering Yes or No. This poll will hopefully bring extra information to facilitate the closing of the titling debate or fuel further discussions on the issue. — JFG talk 10:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notified Talk:New York City, Talk:New York (disambiguation), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. — JFG talk 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinions[edit]

Please answer Yes or No with a short rationale in this section.

  • No NYC is the primary topic for the term, but I believe that the state article could be easily retitled as New York (State). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. Pppery (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:COMMONNAME directly contradicts the idea that only official names count for potential article titles. ~ Rob13Talk 14:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
      • The official name of New York City is 'City of New York', not 'New York City'. Likewise, the official name of New York State is 'State of New York'. This argument makes no sense. RGloucester 22:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. It seems likely the primary topic issue will be punted on at the move request. Since we name articles based on primary topic, we should establish this before the next move request. Given the arguments at the move request, it's obvious New York State isn't primary. I don't think the city is either. ~ Rob13Talk 14:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. It simply and obviously fails both PT criteria, evidence and policy have both been cited to support this, and there has been no serious, evidence or policy-based suggestion otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. For many English speakers, "New York" refers to the city. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. NYC is the primary topic for NY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: Why? Pppery (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Long-term, wide-ranging significance. New York was a city before the colony bounded as we know it existed. New York was a world-significant city before the the colonies even unified to consider independence. New York has for hundreds of years been the most important entry point into the New World. There is more economic and social significant to whether you are a true New Yorker or a commuter from New Jersey, than if you are in upstate New York or across the border in Pennsylvania. US state borders have an academic federal political topicality, but in nearly every other respect the world's megacities are far more important subjects.

        That said, the reason the status quo is not a problem is because New York State and New York City are not independent of each other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

        For an article to be the primary topic, is not enough that it is highly important or significant; it needs to be much more important than other topics competing for the title. Do you consider New York city to be much more historically significant than New York state? Diego (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, because the name of the state is derivative of the city. That makes the city the default primary topic, and I don't think the state overcomes the significance of the city considering so many aspects. If the two topics were independent, neither derivative on the other, then there would be no primary topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Andrewa, is that an instruction, or a reference to something specific below? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Good question. It was intended to be read see my comment below, to keep the Opinions section as uncluttered as possible, but could equally be read as Please comment below, for the same reason... except that reading doesn't make much sense unless you read my comment below first... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No – There is no primary topic. Both the city and state are called New York, one merely the 'City of New York', and the other the 'State of New York'. The significance of the city internationally is far too great to allow the state to take primary topic status. RGloucester 22:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No. City has greater global importance and slightly more incoming links (even counting for State the links to [[New York]] that were meant for the city and the Doe was born in [[Anytown]], [[New York]] state links that are rarely followed). Probably no primary topic; if there is one it's the city. Certes (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Recognizing that TITLE policy requires that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject, and that Primary Topic states: "[t]here is no single criterion for defining a primary topic," New York has greater population and area than any other competing topic it is thus vastly more significant in real metrics (not feeling metrics) under ptopic. New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York, and the present city was created on January 1, 1898, under the laws of New York, and its area and people are more than encompassed by New York all making it more significant in law and in fact, under ptopic. Past discussions have shown that those who think of The City are thinking of New York County (aka, Manhattan) not New York City, thus New York City is less significant in their eyes, than New York County. Compare that, like Hillary Clinton, who may be the next president of the United States, was the junior Senator of New York, not the city, the electors of New York will select the President, not the city, thus again much more significant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but where does WP:TITLE make such a thing as "requiring that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject"? The policy is very clear that the decision process is to be made by consensus, with a basis on how reliable sources discuss the topic; there's nothing in it limiting the characteristics of editors that may participate in the decision. If you're talking either about the Recognizability or WP:CONCISE criteria, in both cases they're talking about what is familiar to readers, not the editors making the decision. And I might say, the current title makes a poor work at fulfilling the naming criteria, as familiar readers will have problems determining which is the topic from the ambiguous name, which fails to have enough WP:PRECISION for that. Diego (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
      • You've made contradictory assertions, being familiar with the RS on the topic also is familiarity with the topic, and yes those familiar with the topic of New York, will know well the state. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Ok, but then they will also be familiar with the sources for the city, so that criterion doesn't make the state stand out over the city in any way. Therefore that criterion contributes nothing towards the state being primary. Diego (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
          • That and the other things do make it stand out (eg. if, in fact, you wiped New York off the face of the earth, then NYC does not exist, but if you wiped the city off the face of the earth there is still New York) and familiarity with New York and/or New York City presents no cause for confusion - those who are familiar are by definition well aware. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Excuse me if I can't follow your reasoning at all. How is any of that related in any way with leading readers to the article they want to read, which is the focus of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline? And it still doesn't explain how knowing about the city and the state makes the latter more important in terms of familiarity with the topic, when the editor is equally aware of both. Diego (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Come now. I hope, your 'I don't understand' is not really you disagree. Focus on what primary topic and wp:title actually say and the real factual metrics regarding significance and educational value I already provided, and not your feelings about what you speculate others may want - your approach is not policy, and is certainly no basis for consensus. "Hillary Clinton was the junior senator representing New York", is perfectly clear, natural and concise (it also references the Primary Topic by real measures of significance) and familiarity is the express requirement of WP:Title because it would be make no sense for an actual encyclopedia to have those unfamiliar with the topics choose titles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
              "Rudy Giuliani was the mayor of New York" is also perfectly clear, but it doesn't mean he was mayor of the state.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about the question[edit]

Feel free to bring up longer statements about the issue at hand here.

From the !votes above: Yes New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. Interesting logic. This RfC asks a simple question, and this supposed !vote does not even try to answer it, despite the Yes it claims. It's fair enough (but wrong IMO) to claim that the question is irrelevant. But that's not what is being asked here. Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The city article is clearly the primary topic for New York City. That fact does not disqualify the article from also being the primary topic for other titles such as Nueva York, The City So Nice They Named It Twice and possibly New York. Certes (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Certes: The fact that there are various other redirects to the city are irrelevant. There are no other articles competing for the titles you mentioned. There is {obviously} another article competing for the name New York. Pppery (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Then NYC is a better example, as it has several other meanings. But let's not get too engrossed in specific examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF. My point was that one article may be the primary topic of multiple titles. Certes (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From the !votes above: No. For many English speakers, "New York" refers to the city. This is an entirely valid rationale, but even so I preach caution. Of course, if it's true that NYC is the primary topic (and I agree that it is) , then NYS can't be. But the question here is just whether NYS is the primary topic. If we begin to discuss in addition whether NYC is the primary topic, we open the possibility of creating a Condorcet paradox, and one of the RM panel specifically raised this possibility in their initial comments. What they did not say is that while a Condorcet is in theory unresolvable, in practice all systems do resolve it, including our own RM process and specifically the RM on which they were and are adjuducating. They have since (thankfully) stated that the possibility of a Condorcet did not influence their thinking, but in view of the circles in which the oppose vote has been allowed to lead us, I preach caution in bringing any possibility of a three-way decision into the poll above. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

From the survey above: No. NYC is the primary topic for NY. Please note the can of worms this opened. Far better to focus on the question which was asked, as I said above. Andrewa (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a specific question of whether New York State is the primary topic, which would justify its current location if it were. Focusing on NYC vs. no primary topic at this stage is immaterial. ~ Rob13Talk 08:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It is far from immaterial. It is the sort of muddy thinking that was allowed to create this mess in the first place, and is now being allowed to prolong it. It should never have been a big deal. WP:Creed#15. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From the poll above: Recognizing that TITLE policy requires that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject, and that Primary Topic states: "[t]here is no single criterion for defining a primary topic," New York has greater population and area than any other competing topic it is thus vastly more significant in real metrics (not feeling metrics) under ptopic. New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York, and the present city was created on January 1, 1898, under the laws of New York, and its area and people are more than encompassed by New York all making it more significant in law and in fact, under ptopic. Past discussions have shown that those who think of The City are thinking of New York County (aka, Manhattan) not New York City, thus New York City is less significant in their eyes, than New York County. Compare that, like Hillary Clinton, who may be the next president of the United States, was the junior Senator of New York, not the city, the electors of New York will select the President, not the city, thus again much more significant.

This starts off with an error of fact... there's no such requirement in WP:AT. Article titles, like all of Wikipedia, belong to the whole community. We are certainly, all of us, urged to consult reliable sources, which hopefully are familiar with the subject.

But the rest is excellent! A comprehensive list of the reasons that NYS could claim to be PT, by significance, by usage and by other criteria... even the HLJC gets mentioned although not by name.

I commend it to all !voters. The question is of course, do any or all of these arguments stand up against the many arguments that NYS is not the PT?

Significant progress. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The metrics that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC favor are those concerning what readers may be looking for and want to learn, not how big, famous or legal the topic is; WP:DISAMBIGUATION is primarily about easing navigation for our readership, not about placing topics that look "important" at prominent places. If those looking for New York may be thinking indistinctly about the state, the county, the municipality or the metropolitan area, that's actually an argument against having one of them dominate over the others.
New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York That is hard to believe when the city came first, and the state afterwards. Diego (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. And there are equally obvious flaws in all of the arguments presented there. It speaks for itself. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Procedural comments[edit]

Any comments about the process should go here.

  • Good lord just give it a break guys. Toa Nidhiki05 10:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not even going to !vote here, and anyway I've already answered this during the move request discussion, as any interested editor could have. This RfC was started in bad faith strictly to subvert the process of the move request adjudication, amidst this process, and directly in violation of the spirit and perhaps letter of what admin panelist Newyorkbrad has recommended and/or instructed, simply to get around a likely moratorium on this topic. This RfC should be withdrawn immediately, as the time for this would have been while the move request discussion was ongoing. Please withdraw this RfC. Castncoot (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Castncoot, would you agree to participate in a dispute resolution process? Your continuous calls to stifle any kind of discussion and repeated accusations of bad faith are starting to become seen as very bad form. If you don't agree to this RfC, there must be some way that you find acceptable to discuss other people's concerns, so that we can settle the question. Diego (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
No. And the direct answer to this is simple. As I've already pointed out, this was already discussed extensively during the move request discussion process. You and others had all the time in the world to malleate the topic of primary topic in any which way you wanted, as you are directly tying this to the move request, while the oppose side argued that it was not the determinant factor anyway. You don't get a second bite at the apple when things aren't going your way. The move request discussion is now closed, and the panel will decide how much weight, if any, this (and any other move request-related topic either favoring or disfavoring a move, by the way) will have in coming up with a composite decision. And then all of these topics will need to be subjected to a common moratorium along with any subsequent move discussion itself. Would you simply wipe up an oil spill, or would you also plug up holes from the oil tanker? Castncoot (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
And what if the crew of the leaking tanker were to try to stop you by denying there was any leak? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is sad and surprising that we are even discussing this while the RM is in process, but reasonable in the circumstances. I stated early in the process of the current RM that NYS fails both PT criteria and there has subsequently been no serious, evidence or policy-based attempt to dispute this.

However we are now in the position that one of the panel of three has expressed the opinion that there is consensus that NYS is not the PT, but the other two seem to see no consensus on this. Worse, their statements are unclear even on whether this consensus exists. These are simple and relevant questions, surely?

And against this background, User:Castncoot is vigorously proposing that all discussion relevant to this question should be banned for a period of three and preferably six years. I have consistently supported a moratorium that is well scoped and of reasonable length, and I have yet to hear any opposition to it. But his proposal is neither.

So the neatest thing now is to have this particular discussion immediately (and, in hindsight, belatedly). It would have been far better to have this RfC before the latest RM, but that was not the decision of the latest MR.

It is a simple, relevant and timely question, and there is no good reason that it should not or cannot be quickly resolved. Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree, enough already, and very improper, so I'll abstain a vote. The question is loaded as well. If you want to be neutral, you'd ask "what is the primary topic?" instead of asking if it's New York state or not. Reminds me of a comment on the RM about such loaded statements and their negative consequences likely in this case. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, very improper and shameful because it is NOT timely, regardless of the way the question could be phrased. This conversation should and could have been formed only by Newyorkbrad or perhaps BD2412, both of whom had clearly indicated in somewhat different ways that the time for further comment on the substance of the move request discussion or its potential justifications had expired; and in my opinion, this is anarchy. I can think of other RfC questions here that would skew to disfavor a move, but I am holding back. I also abstain from a vote on this question for this very reason; people know what I have stated in the move request discussion, as they know what others have already stated as well. Therefore, this particular discussion is rendered moot. Castncoot (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I also tend to agree that it is inappropriate to begin a new discussion at this time. It feels like rushing to get something new underway before the closing panel has the chance to speak on a moratorium, which has been proposed by a number of participants. I have been through this mill before. I proposed to move "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton", the proposal failed, and rather than trying to restart the discussion in a different venue, I respected the moratorium and spent that period gathering a substantial body of evidence - thousands of examples - demonstrating the primary topic title. The next move request succeeded. bd2412 T 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This can't be called "rushing" as the discussion was closed for over a month now and the panelists have not come to a common conclusion yet. I started this RFC to help settle a key question about which editors on both sides and one panelist have publicly requested clarification, so I feel legitimate to take the pulse of the community on this narrowly-formulated finding of fact. There is no prejudice in my question about the eventual page move; the community could very well decide that other arguments than WP:PTOPIC should prevail in this particular case. But at least it will be a fully-informed decision. — JFG talk 03:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@BD2412: This isn't a move request, though; it's the gathering of evidence that the community considers NYS not to be primary topic. The closers have had plenty of chance to comment. They've chosen not to do so on this subject, so we're moving on. ~ Rob13Talk 03:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I see no new information or evidence being presented here, so who will be fully-informed of what? Of the fact that a bunch of RFC respondents either have a gut feeling on this, or agree with the evidence presented in the apparently unsuccessful move request? What is the point of having a new discussion if no new support is provided? bd2412 T 03:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Procedural rules must be respected. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a banana republic version of medium, rather than an encyclopedia. For that procedural reason alone, that this RfC was started amidst a move closure adjudication process, after the discussion period allowing all arguments to be made had expired – aside from the fact that Wikiproject NYC corresponds to New York City and is additionally subordinate, as one of the List of cities in New York, to Wikiproject New York, which corresponds to New York State as the Primary Topic, trumping all other PTOPIC arguments from the beginning of time – this page's discussion is rendered moot. Castncoot (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
BD2412, are you of a capacity to hat this particular discussion as closed? Castncoot (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
BD2412, if new evidence is to be presented, this is the time and place to do so. The whole point of a new RfC is to elaborate on the points that many of us felt were unclear with respect to the issue of the primary topic, and that includes delving into the amount of evidence available - you can bring new evidence or request it if you think it's important. Diego (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What is new is the format of the question, which has at least some chance of improving on the latest RM. The purpose of all talk pages, it should be remembered, is to build consensus. For whatever reason, the latest RM has failed to achieve consensus on anything, or so it seems.

So it is valid to look for other ways to build consensus. Many, myself included, feel that the topic of this RfC is a key issue, and that consensus can be achieved on it, or even could already be assessed to exist. Others feel that it is irrelevant, and/or deny forcefully that this consensus exists, and frankly appear determined to prevent any consensus from being achieved..

It would be good to achieve a clear consensus on something, surely? Andrewa (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. @BD2412: You and the closers have alluded to the fact that the primary topic issue, which is usually decided at an RM, cannot be decided at this particular RM because of the way the question was posed as Move or Not Move. This has been provided as a rationale for punting on the issue, but obviously this issue is key to strength of arguments; if there's community consensus that New York State is not the primary topic, then the "move" arguments become much stronger. Since the closers have indicated they do not appear inclined to address the primary topic issue at the RM, then this is not a rehashing of another discussion; it's an attempt to find a broader community consensus on a specific question that would be relevant to future move requests and which has apparently not been adequately explored at the RM. This is again a case where we can't have it both ways. Either the primary topic bit can be assessed at the RM and must be taken into account when weighing the arguments or it cannot be assessed at the RM and therefore can and should be decided at this RfC. It's beyond frustrating that editors are trying to lock us in some type of bureaucratic legal hell whereby they claim we've never argued primary topic properly, but we're forbidden from doing so via some type of non-existent moratorium that's part of a close that's been pending for over a month. (Castncoot, in particular, is arguing in one place that primary topic is "moot" and shouldn't be considered for the move (last hit of "moot" if you ctrl+F at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request) while arguing vigorously here that we can't discuss primary topic because it's heavily tied to the recent move request. I do not drop WP:AGF lightly, but there comes a time when my patience is exhausted. It's extremely facetious to adopt two wholly contradictory arguments when each happens to be convenient for your position.) ~ Rob13Talk 08:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Rob, please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what I say. Your side is specifically linking primary topic heavily to the move request. Not the oppose side, who believes not to give primary topic WP:UNDUE weight. We can't do your "work" for you, that's not our responsibility. So if you had wanted to make your case about Primary Topic, you had every opportunity to do so the during the move request discussion. And you all did, collectively. Look at the number one argument listed for the support side at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request! The closers took that and everything else into account when they made their decision. Therefore, the discussion on this page represents a brazen attempt at a second bite at the apple after the discussion has already been closed and represents obstructive interference with the process of adjudication that is already cooking; its worth to anything official in Wikipedia is therefore null and void. This RfC as such is moot to any move request discussion, has no constructive value at this point, should be subjected to a moratorium of a yet undetermined amount of time along with any future move request discussion, and should be hatted off immediately. And people, please for goodness sakes allow the panel to come up with a joint decision; Newyorkbrad has already hinted that he will not let this drag on forever. Castncoot (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I've asked the other panelists to add anything they wish to. I can't compel them to do so, and one of them seems to be on a wikibreak. My own take is that (1) there is no consensus for a move, (2) people on both sides are becoming unhelpfully obsessed about this entire issue, and (3) if is it up to me, people would focus on other things before renewing discussion of any aspect of this issue for a minimum of several months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, there are aspects of this issue that shouldn't wait for a several-months-long moratorium. This is a time-sensitive issue: every week bad links are created that describe the city but point readers to the state article. No one in the discussion denied that this is happening, but the opposers to the move for the most part conveniently ignored the calls to find a solution to this problem, whether it involved moving the article or not.
The backlog of incoming links to review was alleviated somewhat by the adaptation of bots to fix the trivial cases, but many new wrong links will be created in that time that still will require human supervision. (I tried to lend a hand in the disambiguation task, but I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of this topic to know how to be sure that I would fix most of the problematic links correctly). Every day that we can advance in the task to find a long-term consensus is a step toward solving this problem that affects readers, not just editors. A ban on discussing any aspect, even if it is not a direct request to change the title, would only make the problem worse. Diego (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Diego, to narrowly address what you just rehashed from the move request discussion, the City is part of the State. Therefore, many or most of these are neither technically incorrect nor "bad" links. The ones that are strictly incorrect because the City was specifically searched should be fixed individually by our universal community of editors at the time they get the error, just like with any other error in the text. A drastic response such as a move is certainly not the fix for that. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, and don't use a bulldozer when you simply need a sleek hammer. But most importantly, please follow the rules of Wikipedia, i.e., content arguments need to be off-limits at this point. Castncoot (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
A possible increase in the number of incoming links is a non-issue. There are already over 75,000 links to this page (I have clarified several thousand incoming links to point to the city over the time since the last discussion was active); the number of new links that will be created in the next six months pointing to this article but specifically intending the city will be a trivial portion of an already gargantuan number. bd2412 T 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Procedural comments refocus[edit]

Agree that several comments above are rehashing the move discussion. Please focus. The aim of this RfC is to

build consensus on whether or not New York State is the primary topic of the article title "New York"

and any distraction from that, however well intended, is counterproductive to the goals of building consensus and improving Wikipedia.

The discussion is timely because there is a strong desire (and in my view a real possibility of consensus) for a moratorium, but much discussion as to its scope and duration. We need to build consensus on the scope and timing, and many (myself included) feel it is unreasonable for the moratorium to include any issue if a decision on it has been excluded from the closure (for whatever reason). There seems grudging consensus that PT is a key issue, although some participants have not been consistent in their position on this, some even arguing that it is not a key issue but at the same time seeing it as important to discourage building consensus on it, whether as part of the RM or apart from it.

I do not wish to put pressure on the panel to include a further statement on primary topic, just the opposite. I am obviously disappointed that two of them do not wish to, but it is their call. This RfC frees them from this pressure, in that once it is resolved, that then removes the main point of contention as to whether a moratorium should extend to PT discussions.

At the risk of putting words into their mouths, there appears to be a majority decision that PT is not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not to move. I respect that decision and recommend a reasonable moratorium to follow it. We must move on. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There is (in my view, subject to any further input from the other panelists) no consensus to move the article even assuming that New York State is not the primary topic. Of those opposing a move, a few commenters felt that New York State was the primary topic, while others felt either explicitly or implicitly that other considerations warranted no-move irrespective of whether or not it was the primary topic. If you accept that there should be no immediate renewal of the move-or-don't-move discussion, I don't see what purpose would be served by discussing the question of primary topic in the abstract, since the only relevance of determining whether the state is the primary topic would be for the purpose of using this fact as an argument for the contested pagemove—outside that context, unless I am missing something, it's just an academic exercise. I very sincerely wish that editors would focus for awhile on some of the 5+ million other pages of the encyclopedia for awhile rather than the name of this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that seems to confirm my understanding of your position. Exactly!
I think we will need to disagree on whether this discussion is timely. I have given my reasons for thinking it is both timely and constructive (although please note I did not initiate it). It is not an academic exercise but an important part of working towards consensus on a moratorium.
Yes, I am on record as saying that there should be no MR, and a moratorium of at least six months and preferably twelve on any new RM. I have not changed that opinion, and seek now to build consensus supporting it. Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
What would the purpose of the discussion you are proposing be? I'm not being argumentative, at least not deliberately so—I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Assuming you mean the current discussion on whether NYS is PT, my purpose in participating is to work towards consensus on a moratorium, so we can all have a break from this and get back to all those other articles as you suggested.
(Of course I'm not proposing that discussion, I'm participating in one that has already been started by others. So is it really the one you mean? I haven't intentionally proposed any other recently!)
There are two ways forward that I can see if we are to build consensus on the moratorium. One is to explicitly allow further discussion of PT during the moratorium. The other is to answer the question now. I'm of the opinion that we can answer the question quite easily and rapidly, provided we stay focused on building consensus on the question as asked. So it's the obvious way to go.
I could be wrong. But the poll to date seems already conclusive. The only rationale yet provided supporting a Yes is New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. That rationale is so full of holes that words fail me, but I think its various flaws have all been identified above.
So here is a suggestion right out of the blue... why don't either you or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise close this RfC as Strong consensus that New York State is not the primary topic?
I don't think that would be at all improper. Probably User:Niceguyedc should not do it, nor should you close it if the verdict were otherwise. Any of those might be challenged, and we can do without that!
It's a bit radical perhaps. It would not make a new RM post moratorium any more likely, as that is inescapable anyway. And meantime, we could all get back to more productive editing. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the question of what the primary topic of "New York" is has meaning only in the context of a move discussion, so I still really don't understand the concept of discussing what the primary topic is while purporting not to discuss whether or not to move the page.
As I've previously said several times, I am not prepared to say that there is a consensus that the State is not the primary topic, in part because many participants in the discussion did not believe that was the most important factor to focus on and did not address the issue one way or the other. I have also said that even if it were decided that the State is not the primary topic, this would not resolve whether there is a primary topic, nor would it resolve whether the page should be moved (I think you agree with me on at least the last point).
If the move discussion is closed as no consensus, I will suggest holding off on any further discussion of moving this article and all related issues for either six months or a year. I would consider discussing whether New York State is the primary topic, as well as whether the article should be redirected (as someone has raised on my talkpage), to fall within the scope of the issues that should be held in abeyance during that time, unless someone such as yourself is able to explain what value discussing such collateral issues would have, other than as prelude to the next move discussion.
Can people on this page please find something else to talk about? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. If you are not prepared to say that there is a consensus that the State is not the primary topic, then of course you can't take my suggestion. I am surprised at the reason you give, but not really at the result. My suggestion was a bit out of left field I admit!
If we do have a moratorium as broad as you propose, then may I suggest a longer moratorium on RMs? Perhaps a year specifically on RMs, but just six months on related discussions?
That way we will hopefully avoid the situation we now seem to have, that had the RfC been raised before the RM, you would then have been able to assess a consensus on the RfC, and even that the RM might then have succeeded. (We will never know of course.) Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for banging on about this, but it would help us find something else to talk about if there was a single unified result for the RM, that we could all hang our hats on and say that's the outcome. If it's no consensus, that's absolutely fine, but there should be one rationale agreed by the panel, and signed off by all three of them. I may be wrong, but it seems like the continuing discussion stems largely from the inconclusive end to the RM and the fact that I at least don't even fully understand why there was no consensus seen by the panel.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty straightforward, Amakuru - there's no agreement. No agreement ---> no consensus. You can go back and reinvent that wheel before returning to "New York" if you'd like, of course. As far as the length of the moratorium goes, we really should have a !vote and take the median - it would be unfair for one side alone to determine this. Castncoot (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and although your position is well known to me, and no doubt you're happy enough with an ending that has no agreement whatsoever, but you'll forgive me for feeling like there has been an inconclusive ending here. "No consensus" can apply to the debate as a whole, but the point of a panel is that it comes to a definitive consensus amongst its three members. Anything else is a hung jury. That's what happened at Hillary Clinton, and it hasn't yet happened here. Just to be clear, I don't object if the result is "no consensus", but I want there to be a result.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
As I read the various policies and guidelines, a no consensus close is a decision that no consensus is possible, not just that it has not yet been achieved.
I appreciate and share the desires of many to give this a break. It has not been a pleasant experience! But we should first explore all possibilities of consensus, and should commend those who are doing some lateral thinking to seek it, and are prepared to spend time on this.
On the other hand, I again ask that we all work to build consensus. All of us. It may be that a no consensus decision is the result, but to actively work towards such a result is a breach of behavioural guidelines, and may be sanctioned in various ways. Andrewa (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have added comments from below which may have been missed, upon the advice of Castncoot. Please read it before you make a judgement. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Arriving a bit late at this section, but it occurred to me the following regarding why this RfC is important, regardless of its possible influence on a move: we are trying to clarify the reasons why the state has been located at this prominent place. Recent comments in the Opinions and "about the question" sections have been shedding light on why some people think this status quo is a fair situation, which frankly is something that was quite unclear from the RM discussion. Diego (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Side stepping the naming question[edit]

As the naming issue doesn't seem to be able to reach a consensus how about looking at an alternate approaches? I know a broad concept article on the combined geographical regions of both the state and the city had been suggested where I suggested this already, but as I commented there, I think the article on the state itself can fulfill this role. Given that the city is the most notable city in the state a section of this article to the city seems reasonable. Yes it is mentioned through out the article but it would allow both the city and the state to be covered at the "New York" title with a {{Main}} link to the city's article. PaleAqua (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This actually sounds like a bright idea. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It got little support before, but perhaps it was the way in which it was presented.
How would the lede of such an article read? See draft:New York for my attempt. Andrewa (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks good so far. I hope to offer help, please check the draft for these updates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
To be honest I don't think this helps much. Yes, the two concepts are intertwined and related, but they are still fundamentally a pair of very distinct things. A big city and a big US state. The vast majority of readers will want specifically one or the other, so I don't see the value of another article that somehow covers both. IMHO anyway, tho others may disagree with me.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I can understand what you mean, but their is a reason why they are intertwined and related. I'm facing similar problems on the Emirates of the United Arab Emirates articles, which are debated on if they are distinct. This has resulted in some emirates like Abu Dhabi having separate articles for the city and emirates, but others having a combined page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Update Would this be a set index or, disambiguation or, something new and unique? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not think there is any doubt that we should end up with dedicated articles on both New York State and New York City by whatever names! I could be wrong. But it seems a no-brainer to me.
The suggestion as I understand it is that we could have, in addition, a higher-level article which covers both topics (and perhaps others), and that this could be validly formed from the article currently at New York. It's a bit out of left field, but lateral thinking is good. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I was actually thinking something different from that not a broad concept article but increasing the coverage of the city in the existing state article. PaleAqua (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@PaleAqua: No offense, but I think as Amakuru stated about them being distinct that this would be troublesome. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Update We would also need to consider these articles Outline of New York and Index of New York-related articles, but I think that fixing these minor problems is worth it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Understood this time I think. I completely misinterpreted you when you raised this before (as I admitted at the time). Andrewa (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Although technical considerations come second to content, a broad concept article would also solve the problem of identifying wikilinks having an inappropriate target. Almost all links to the new page would be errors, and these would become easy to distinguish from deliberate links to the State article. Certes (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
True. This is another advantage, as people who watch the redirects towards the page could much easily fix it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Update I just realised that this would temporarily require the wikilinks to the state article being corrected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Update again Wikidata would also be have to fixed, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Against a broad-concept article, IMO a non-starter for reasons including that which Amakuru outlined, and another Trojan horse – this discussion should obviously be part of any move request-related moratorium. Castncoot (talk)
This is confusing two distinct issues. One is, will a broad-concept article (or something similar) be helpful? The other is, if we do create one, what should it be called? Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links[edit]

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:

  1. Keep the page name as is for now (until there is a clear consensus to move it); but:
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. Once all the links intending another target have been fixed, restore all the intentional links to point directly to New York.
  5. After this operation is complete, set up a weekly bot report of all new links created pointing to New York; a bot can fix obvious cases ("New York City"), and an editor can go over the rest. Remember, it took us 15 years to accumulate the existing 75,000 links, which comes to only about 100 links per week. A bot report can provide a line or two of context before and after the link itself so that the editor need not look at the actual article to determine which ones intend the city.

Before anyone gets up in arms over the amount of work involved in the above proposal, I volunteer to do it all myself, and to get it done by the end of September. I need a clear consensus to go forward with a project like this so that I don't get a lot of WP:NOTBROKEN complaints while initially piping the links. bd2412 T 18:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I second the cleanup operation, although I don't understand the purpose of piping links through (state) and recovering the original direct link afterwards. Is it to keep track of which links have been processed? If so, I would remove step 4 in the process - just leave the links through the redirect forever. WP:NOTBROKEN actually supports having a redirect and not making it direct, and links like [[New York (state)|New York]] will always remain unambiguous to readers who hover to read the target URL and/or read the navigation popup; in fact this kind of piping through the parenthetical disambiguation is commonly done in disambiguation discussions when a topic is placed as a primary topic. Diego (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Diego just change the existing links to [[New York (state)]] or [[New York (state)|New York]] for the time being. Also the examples you've given could use these ideas too, but lets see how this goes first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've actually done this a bit with Supreme court - people often link to the redirect Supreme Court when they mean a specific court (usually the U.S. Supreme Court); when they mean the generic sense, I pipe it through the lowercase direct link to make it clear that the link has been checked. I have no objection to leaving the link piped, though I worry that editors will tend to try to "fix" it. bd2412 T 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@BD2412: I'll probably help you with the supreme court after we decide what to do here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
(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)
Yes, that is definitely off-topic for this discussion. I would suggest that you start a discussion at Supreme court. bd2412 T 12:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
@Certes: I agree with you that being specific and stating the city would be best. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If there is no objection, then, I'll get to work on this in the next few days. bd2412 T 02:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you just do steps 1-3 for the time being? The broad concept article/set index may be used for the page New York Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. If we just change the links to pipe through, and leave them that way for the time being, then there will be no need for a report at all, because we will clearly see new links being made to the base page name. bd2412 T 12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)