Talk:New York (state)/Proposed move

Draft proposed move

Proposed move

Upon the initiation of this discussion, please move the following template (without the "quote" template and "nowiki" tags) to Talk:New York (disambiguation):

{{subst:requested move | new1 = New York | current2 = New York | new2 = New York (state) | reason = It is proposed that in accordance with Wikipedia [[WP:ATDIS|community consensus]], the disambiguation page [[New York (disambiguation)]] be moved to [[New York]], and that the article on the state of New York be moved to [[New York (state)]]. The basis of this proposal is the asserted absence of a [[WP:primary topic|]] for the term [[New York]] ([[Talk:New York (state)/Archive 6#RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?|as determined by RfC consensus]]), due to the prominence of [[New York City]] as a topic frequently referred to as "New York", and to a lesser extent due to the existence of numerous other topics titled "New York", such as [[New York (magazine)]], sports teams and educational institutions, and various albums, songs and books. '''Logistical Note''': two of these pages require administrator access to move.}}

Proposed page moves

New York (disambiguation) → New York

New York → New York (state)

Arguments and evidence in favor of the proposed moves

This section is open to anyone and everyone who wants to present arguments in favor of this page-move proposal. Editors are encouraged to present such evidence at any time.

---

Text below (minus references) will be added after this proposal has been initiated.

The consensus of the Wikipedia community is upheld by these page moves as will be shown by policy- and guideline-driven arguments. While these community guides are not set in stone and exceptions are made, they are the first port of call in move discussions, and it is up to those who wish an exception to justify it and to show that its principles are similarly supported by consensus-based policy.

Community consensus supports qualification of the base name "New York" title, while clearing it to title the disambiguation page. Following are the tools the community uses to support these page moves:

• WP:ATDIS policy represents a strong community consensus to disambiguate any confusing base-name title such as "New York":

• "If the topic is not primary, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated."
• The policy suggests a number of ways to qualify the title of the state article. The best choice is a matter of opinion. This proposal suggests New York (state) for four reasons:
  1. consistency with Washington (state), Chihuahua (state), Rio de Janeiro (state), etc.
  2. clarity: New York (state) appears to be the most concise unambiguous title
  3. technical convenience: New York (state) is an existing redirect and is already used for most links to the state article
  4. retains the state's common name per WP:COMMONNAME, qualified as necessary

• The ambiguity of "New York" as a name is well-attested in Wikipedia usage. Tens of thousands of wikilinks pointed to New York when editors wikified the city name without paying attention to the destination page. A manual survey of 147 random backlinks to New York conducted on 4 July 2016 counted 61 articles with links to New York that meant New York City, 67 that meant New York State and 19 with both kinds of links. Having either New York State or New York City at the base name perpetuated about half of internal links that pointed to the wrong destination. This situation was detrimental to readers and to the integrity of the encyclopedia. "New York" should be the title of the disambiguation page so that thousands of future internal links made per year by editors will be disambiguated and not have to be constantly fixed. Editors who link to New York will finally be automatically notified to fix that link. The longer the status quo remains, the more new links will need to be manually checked and fixed.

• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – historically, this argument has been used most often to show that the Wikipedia community consensus is to clarify the bare "New York" title for readers. There are two common criteria in this guideline, and New York State fails both.
  1. With respect to long-term significance, the primary topic may very well be New York City. It is one of the most famous and important cities in the world, and it has been described as the cultural and financial capital of the world. Furthermore, the city has existed under this name since 1664, long before the state came into existence, in 1777.
  2. With respect to usage, the position is less clear as to what the primary topic may be; however, it is clear that the primary topic is not New York State. Depending on context, New York can refer to several things. It often refers to the city, as in An Englishman in New York and the New York Stock Exchange. It is in general at least as likely that New York refers to the city as to the state, maybe moreso, so there is no chance of the state passing the test of being highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

• RfC discussion, 28 August 2016 – "Is New York State the primary topic for the term 'New York'?"

• Closing statement: "Overall, consensus indicates that New York State is not the primary topic for the title 'New York'."

Wikipedia would be improved in many ways, including its efficiency, by the proposed moves. Mislinkings would be fewer and more easily corrected. The DAB page loads far more quickly for readers than the page on the state. This request is made with no prejudice against a future requested move to seek consensus that New York City is the primary topic.

It is hoped that editors see the above policy and guideline as goals and tools rather than just abject rules. The objective is to find ways to improve these page names, both for readers who click on the base name, New York, but intend to read about subjects other than the state of New York, and for editors who continue to make links to that base name, while context shows that their intention is to link to the city, or to something else "New York".

Arguments and evidence against the proposed moves

This section is open to anyone and everyone who wants to present arguments against this page-move proposal. Editors are encouraged to present such evidence at any time.

The wikilink misdirection issue was the biggest reason to consider such a move, but bd2412 has already subsequently addressed this with an ongoing algorithm, a targeted solution to a specific problem. The City article is already named New York City, and therefore the State is already auto-disambiguated to NewYork. There is no non-ideological reason remaining for such a proposed move. Castncoot (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the motivation. Is it due to confusion with New York City? There would be no reason to move Mexico to a disambiguation page as a result of confusion with Mexico City. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Text above (minus references) will be added after this proposal has been initiated. Every participant is encouraged and urged to cite one or more of the above in their support rationale.

---

DO NOT EDIT THE SECTIONS BELOW UNTIL THE DISCUSSION IS FORMALLY OPENED

(remove the above header upon the formal opening of this discussion)

Opinions

Please indicate in this section whether you support, oppose, or are neutral with respect to the proposed move.

Support

Please indicate support in this section, with a brief statement explaining your position. Please take care not to break the numbering of the section. Extended discussion, including responses to opinions noted here, should occur in the "discussion" section below. Editors may move improperly placed materials to that section, with an appropriate subhead.

Oppose

Please indicate opposition in this section, with a brief statement explaining your position. Please take care not to break the numbering of the section. Extended discussion, including responses to opinions noted here, should occur in the "discussion" section below. Editors may move improperly placed materials to that section, with an appropriate subhead.

Neutral

Please indicate neutrality in this section, with a brief statement explaining your position. Please take care not to break the numbering of the section. Extended discussion, including responses to opinions noted here, should occur in the "discussion" section below. Editors may move improperly placed materials to that section, with an appropriate subhead.

Discussion of draft

Discussion in favor of the proposed move

On the road

To all participants (hope I didn't miss anyone) – To editors ­bd2412, JFG, Andrewa, Certes, עוד מישהו and Diego: To editors Amakuru, SmokeyJoe, PaleAqua, Pharos and Castncoot: do we agree that the above will be added after the initial proposal? Should it be exactly as is? formatted differently? can it be made better? should anything below (collapsed) be included?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

On the unsigned text above "On the road":

"The consensus of the Wikipedia community is upheld by these page moves as will be shown by policy- and guideline-driven arguments". Cute legalistic TV court style, but it presumes that there exists a consensus, and that is always a dubious presumption. Following buzz words serve to intimidate opposition by asserting that their no-agreement is contrary to consensus. Strike as unproductive to consensus decision making.

The wordy and presumptive style continues, my eyes begin to glaze.

Replace WP:ATDIS with Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation. Jargon creates a barrier to participation.

#2 "clarity: New York (state) appears to be the most concise unambiguous title" Not true. New York state is more concise, NYS is more concise again. Taking concise to mean the same information in less space. I don't think "concise" is a driving argument for anything here. Throwing every conceivable argument makes it lengthier, and decreases the density of compelling arguments. NB Some call me pithy. I suggest removing #2

"WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – historically ... New York State fails both" This is too word. Start be deleting the final "both". There are two common criteria, and others undocumented, and no rule for how to combine them. All should be taken together. Failing both belongs in the conclusion. A simpler "fails." (full stop) belongs in the introduction.

"Wikipedia would be improved in many ways, including its efficiency, by the proposed moves". Wordy, unclear purpose, a non-statement as a paragraph lede sentence is poor style. I suggest striking this sentence, and rewording the next to lede the paragraph.

"This request is made with no prejudice against a future requested move to seek consensus that New York City is the primary topic." Good but I would like this to be immediately followed by something along the lines of: "With the basename redirecting to the DAB page, data on editors' expectations of the primary topic will become available". Compare with somewhere else on this page Andrewa and I were discussing the "perhaps temporary" NY redirects to the DAB page "perhaps temporarily", as acceptable to anyone (including me) who lean to NYC being the PT, and who may be dissatisfied that this proposal is not giving them everything they want. Personally, I find the notion that having the NY basename page redirect to the DAB page (or putting the DAB page at the NY basename) for the purpose of observing subsequent editor behaviour, satisfying to my gut feeling of disquiet that NYC as PT is not being examined right now.

"It is hoped" calls for {{who}} to be inserted. Mere author hopes belong on the author's userpage. Collective hopes call for a multi-signed statement of hope.
"The objective is to" The wrap up is the wrong place to start defining objectives.
I suggest striking the last paragraph.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally agreed with that critique, other than that WP:Concise is not irrelevant. It is true that just New York state (a common phrase, and more WP:Natural than "New York (state)") is more concise. Since it is both more concise and more natural, it's a preferable choice. WP:AT instructs us to prefer natural titles over parenthetically disambiguated ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of great points above but we risk burying them in the surrounding text. We really need something that an uninvolved editor can digest in less time than it takes to forget what the first sentence said. Weren't we waiting for JFG to produce a concise summary of the proposal? Certes (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Certes: I understand that "waiting for JFG" is not a very satisfying use of my fellow editors' time… But I have started a compact draft; please give me until the weekend. — JFG ^talk 10:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, JFG! I'm sure we would all much rather see a good proposal later than a half-baked one today. Certes (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification, lest I offend anyone: "half-baked" refers to the draft which has just been started offline, not any of the proposals already presented! Certes (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor JFG: Just thought to ask you how your draft is coming along?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  22:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Items under consideration whether or not to include

It is also important to mention arguments that have been used in the past against a New York page move, and how they either do not apply to this proposal or actually favor these page moves: WP:COMMONNAME applies only to article titles, not to disambiguations, so since the actual article title "New York" stays the same, the state article will continue to retain its common name "New York". The sole difference will be the addition of the qualifier, "(state)", as a much-needed disambiguation. WP:NATURALDIS such as "New York State" or the "State of New York" – such titles are alternatives and yet not part of this proposal, because many editors agree that "New York" is a far superior title for the state article, especially when "state" accompanies the title in parentheses as a qualifier. Having the base name as a disambiguation page and the state name at New York (state) is consistent with other entities for which the state is not the primary topic, such as Washington (state) (moved largely because the state of Washington is ambiguous with the famous city of Washington, D.C.), and Georgia (U.S. state) (which requires further qualification because another meaning is Georgia (country), a state in the international sense). Other entities with similar qualifications include Chihuahua (state), Hidalgo (state), Paraná (state), Rio de Janeiro (state), and São Paulo (state). WP:ENGVAR with the "mindset that nothing is really broken" – those unsung volunteer editors who pitched in to disambiguate a large number of misguided internal links might take issue with that. WP:DONOHARM (cited without link) – an essay that was used to oppose the bare NY title for the dab page; however, little or no explanation was given as to how or why both Wikipedia and the NY (state) page would be harmed. This is an important essay that brings out the necessity to do no harm in WP:BLP articles. The New York articles are about a state and city populated by a large number of people, so this essay is not too far off the mark. The "harm" that continues to be done, however, is harm to readers who may want to read about the city, a sports team or any number of other subjects that congregate under the ambiguous "New York" title. Our readers come first, and they should not be made to waste their time landing on pages they hadn't intended to read. So this essay actually favors these page moves. WP:NOCONSENSUS has been cited as a reason for not moving the page; however, this policy becomes relevant only after consensus (or lack of it) has been assessed by the closer of the discussion. It is purely a matter for the person who closes the requested move. It is relevant at that stage and should not be included in the discussion of whether or not to move. Over the years, there have been several page-move proposals; therefore, it is acknowledged that there has been no consensus in the past to alter the status quo. Consensus can change (ccc). The purpose of this proposal is to use policies, guidelines, logic and, of course, AGF to garner consensus and to make "New York" subjects clearer to our editors and readers, many of whom find the base-name title ambiguous. Our gentle readers come first.

• I frankly think we can do without them. State the reasons supporting the move; if the point is raised as an objection, then a response can be made. bd2412 T 00:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. State the central reasons for the move. If someone writes a lengthy compilation of every conceivable reason for, and against, and non-applicable, link to it, but do not ask people to read it as necessary to understand the proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguator revisited

SMcCandlish makes some points above [1] that have not been taken up there. I'm still inclined to go with New York (state). The other three reasons given above seem unchallenged. WP:CONCISE doesn't seem to me to be applicable to this decision, it's just a question of natural versus parenthetical disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't gone over the other three but will here: Consistency applies primarily to the same category, so only Washington (state) would be very relevant; it's unclear if either of those foreign locations really have an overwhelmingly common name in English. And Washington state really isn't as relevant as it seems. The actual COMMONNAME of what is formally named the State of New York is "New York state". When people say just "New York", this almost always means NYC, except when context indicates otherwise ("the New Jersey – New York border"). By contrast, "Washington" used as a place name much more frequently means the state, and it's conventional to say "Washington, DC" in reference to the national capital, except when context makes it clear that is the Washington intended ("Trump has caused a lot of chaos from his office in Washington"). So, the circumstances are essentially reversed. The technical convenience argument doesn't wash. Redirects are cheap, and New York state is also already such a redirect. That said, the sky will not fall if the title ends up being New York (state).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Normally I would not really care. But this is not a normal RM. Just because I'm paranoid that doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

Consistency applies primarily to the same category... disagree.

so only Washington (state) would be very relevant... disagree, sort of. I note the very. This just seems an opinion that the argument isn't terribly strong, although it is relevant.

it's unclear if either of those foreign locations really have an overwhelmingly common name in English... seems then to have no relevance at all.

And Washington state really isn't as relevant as it seems. The actual COMMONNAME of what is formally named the State of New York is "New York state". Evidence?

When people say just "New York", this almost always means NYC, except when context indicates otherwise ("the New Jersey – New York border"). Agree. But not everyone does, and this is at the very heart of the controversy here.

By contrast, "Washington" used as a place name much more frequently means the state, and it's conventional to say "Washington, DC" in reference to the national capital, except when context makes it clear that is the Washington intended ("Trump has caused a lot of chaos from his office in Washington"). So, the circumstances are essentially reversed. Evidence? In Australia, it would be the other way around IMO... Sure, we say "Washington D.C." on occasions, but if someone said to me "I'm flying to Washington tomorrow" it would mean the city, not the state.

The technical convenience argument doesn't wash. Redirects are cheap, and New York state is also already such a redirect. Illogical IMO. So is New York (state). Again, all you seem to be saying is it's not a particularly strong argument, a subjective judgement IMO.

That said, the sky will not fall if the title ends up being New York (state). Agree. Andrewa (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Washington is an interesting case. Washington State is itself a disambiguation page, because of Washington State University. There is no "New York State University". bd2412 T 21:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. As is New York State an interesting case, and Georgia. These are only US states that appear to require disambiguation. But there of course more internationally. Andrewa (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Pre-move proposal discussion

Rushin's are not coming

Geez, I need to do some dreams. So JFG, Andrewa and other past supporters, you are welcome to come and improve upon or add to the above as needed.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. We need to be careful to avoid canvassing of course. I have actually been doing quite a lot of dreaming about this. Thanks for your work so far, and let us not rush this. Andrewa (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I was so tired that I completely forgot about the "no canvassing" rule. As I think about it, though, a case could probably be made for the fact that there are probably several editors who continue to watch all this, you and JFG among them. And these days, rushing is the least of my concerns. In fact, I think it's dropped out of my lex altogether!>)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Paine for taking the time to compile an excellent argument. I'm struggling to improve it but there's one thing I'd change: Are Wikipedia readers so stupid or afraid that they would see a dab page and quiver and sweat? – unlikely at best, imho. If that were true, then we may as well stop making dab pages and delete the ones we have. I've tried reductio ad absurdum in past New York debates, but it moved the discussion onto a tangent of demolishing my straw man. I'm afraid that the phrasing above risks clogging the page with unhelpful counter-arguments as to why we shouldn't delete all our dab pages. Certes (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

First impression: some valid arguments here, thanks. The rationales are a bit too involved, however; we must aim for short and clear "no-nonsense" reasons to apply the move. Also we should avoid legalese as much as possible: refer to policies and guidelines after making the case, not as a premise. I'll be working on simplifying the wording. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please, JFG, I still have some other places to look, and it's getting too long and involved to "go live". Anything that can be done to simplify, even if you feel part of it isn't needed at all, please modify or delete. I would be very grateful for your help! You also, Certes!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If we need to cut this down then I think the gist of the argument is:

1. New York has no primary topic (proof: RFC) (added later: but beware that the RFC leaves open the possibility that the city is primary)
2. Titles with no primary topic should have a dab page (proof: WP:ATDAB; also WP:Disambiguation hints strongly at this without spelling it out)
3. New York should be the title of a dab page (a simple deduction from 1 and 2)
4. The state article needs a different title (obvious, given 3)
5. New York (state) is the best choice for that new title (WP:PARENDIS, but I doubt anyone who accepts 1-4 will disagree and if someone can find a better title, that's great)

Most of the rest is about refuting possible counter arguments, and it may be better simply to whack those moles as and when they appear. Certes (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Certes, I usually agree that it's better to "whack" the counter moles as they stick their heads out. In this case, however, since this is a page-move process that has been tried and has failed so many times, I think it's important to nip those moles in the bud when we can – make opposers come up with new ones for a change, and whack those moles as they surface.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The fascinating thing is there have never been any real moles to whack... If it were a choice between two arguable cases I would understand, but it's a choice between three cases, which leads to the suggestion of an A>B>C>A Condorcet paradox... but no, A<B and A<C, B and C are arguable but A is a clear loser, and somehow we ended up with A as the winner. Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Condorcet, and other majoritarian methods, are seriously incompatible with "consensus decision making". Majoritarian methods are well characterised by identification of an unneeded minority and outright rejection of that minority. Consensus involves listing to all parties, conceding points even to small minorities, and most importantly, compromising on the question to achieve a least-worst outcome for everybody. If there is a Condorcet paradox, there is not even a majority support for any single proposal, and that is most definitely not a "consensus". It is, instead, a cry out for a better question to ask. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm far from expert on such things – to me, the most important questions to ask are why so many solid, seasoned editors opposed a page move against the consensus of the community? Why really did/do they so strongly fight for maintaining the status quo? Oh yes, and what can be done, if anything, to bring them over to side with community consensus? < scratching head >  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_opponent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I tried that, it makes me want to add the hatted material above back in, and the following is meant to be completely non-judgmental. I understand your opposing rationale in the previous RM. It makes sense to me. We fix those problems and move on. What I don't understand are the other rationales, such as, say, Castncoot's. Nor do I understand why, below, Castncoot still argues against these page moves. It seems to me that there is one of two explanations (again, non-judgmental): either Castncoot and others with similar rationales have a COI that has yet to see disclosure, or they have some other type of personal stake in keeping the status quo, which I have no idea what it might be. How easy is it to walk a mile in their shoes when the shoes seem to be too tight a fit?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Replying to SmokeyJoe 03:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC):

This does not appear to be a Condorcet paradox, see User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York. But it's a very good question considering that the possibility was explicitly raised and re-raised by one of the panel last time.

And it is also a good point that wp:consensus is in stark contrast to majoritarian methods, including Condorcet methods (related to but not the same topic as the paradox).

In theory, one sound !vote is preferred to any number of unsound ones in closing. And two factors in assessing soundness are compliance to policy and, dare I say it, to logic. Andrewa (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at User:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York and related pages. Andrewa (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Your page suggests that New York should become a primary redirect to New York City. The RFC close did say that The discussion is somewhat leaning towards the city being the primary topic. However, Paine's argument above is for moving New York (disambiguation) to New York. I think we should make a clear yes/no proposal for one of the two outcomes, rather than splitting the !vote between them and letting "no consensus" in by the back door. Do you agree and, if so, which outcome should we propose? Certes (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree totally. Let us come up with a consensus here on the specific proposal. Yes, ISTM that the primary redirect is both the beat way to go and the most likely to gain consensus. It's best because firstly, New York City is the primary meaning of New York and secondly, New York City is a better title for the article on the city, owing to the ambiguity of New York. It's more likely to gain consensus because there is a great deal of resistance to renaming the article on New York City. But interested in other views, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think anyone is proposing that we rename New York City. It's a perfect example of natural disambiguation. The question is whether New York should be a primary redirect to there, or a dab. Certes (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, moving the disambiguation page is more likely to convince the closer for a move. As explained above by Certes, there is direct support in policy, and is a direct corollary of the "no primary topic" previous RfC; while a redirect to New York City is not. Linking to NYC would require us to prove that it is the primary topic, which is a much higher standard, currently unmet; while we already have consensus for "no primary topic".

Nevertheless, I wouldn't oppose a primary redirect as a possiblity - but I think that achieving it would be much more likely after a DAB is placed at "New York", when the "but it always has been this way" argument no longer applies. Diego (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we only have consensus for the state not being the primary topic. So it's the city or nothing, and there are good arguments on both sides. I came here with the opinion that the city was primary, then the substantial (mainly American) opposition swayed me towards "no primary topic", but I'm happy to cheer for either team. Certes (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe the only sensible change is the dab page. If the city is proposed, the discussion will go back to state vs city factions, with zero chance of success. Besides, if by some twist of fate the city gets a redirect as primary, there would be immediate protests and riots to bring back the state or the dab Reading the extensive discussions from last summer again, I don't see as much vocal opposition to a dab page. — JFG ^talk 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with JFG on this, because if the New York title is redirected to New York City, then editors will continue to mislink to NYC while actually wanting to link to some other meaning for NY, such as the state, sports teams, etc. So the best way to fix that problem is by giving the raw NY title to the dab page. I have a script that turns dab links orange and others have it, also. They're easy to find and fix; however, that is only when the bare NY title is at the top of the dab page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, happy to go for the DAB at the base name New York. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In fact the more I think about it the better the simple proposal to move the DAB to the base name sits. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Some additional statistics in favor of a disambiguation page: When we did the Great Cleanup Project of '16, we checked about 120,000 links, and fixed over 20,000 which intended something other than the state. Since then, I have been making a daily sweep to fix new incoming links to New York. On average, about 15 to 20 new links are made per day, and I would estimate that about 1/3 are for the city. The majority are for the state, usually in City, State constructions, but this may reflect the fact that the state currently occupies the title. However, not a day goes by where I don't have to make edits like edits like this, this, this, this, and this. bd2412 T 02:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have jotted down a few thoughts at User:Certes/New York. I don't think this is a complete argument and it's not intended to replace Paine's essay above, but perhaps we can use something from it. Certes (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've updated User:Certes/New York to steal several ideas from this section. Can we use any of it? Certes (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Certes: I made some insertions with this edit. Thank you!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Move's End

To editors Andrewa, Certes, JFG, Diego and ­bd2412: here are a couple of things that need to be said...

Thank you so much for your input here! You've all helped me improve the arguments and evidence; however, I know it can be even better. So please don't hesitate to edit here, because if your edits make it even more concise and powerful, then I will be on board. If I don't understand an edit, I won't revert it – we can discuss it until its meaning is clear.

The first thing that should be removed when this goes live is the reference section. I used the citations here for the benefit of those who come to this pre-move page to help with the arguments, but I doubt that they should be a part of the live arguments and evidence section.

Thanks again and best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added a point to consider re "no consensus". [2] That was a major distraction last time. Also a link to the closing instructions. Andrewa (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! IIRC, Castncoot wanted to make the point that, not only was there no consensus in the previous RM, but there had been no consensus to move the New York page in any of the previous discussions of the past three lustra. Apparently Castncoot'd never read the essay on the Yogurt Principle (or they were hoping no one else had read it). In my humble opinion, one reason those previous RMs failed to move this page was that closers seemed to pay more attention to the "obvious" (participant) consensus rather than to the community consensus of the policy and guideline arguments. I think it's important for us to use the exact words, "community consensus", to make the point that the policies and guidelines should bring a good deal of weight to the RM.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Watch out for these

I've opened this section for us to use as a "what to watch out for" in the upcoming RM. Opposers in the past, while their arguments had little or no foundation in policies or guidelines, were nevertheless pretty awesome in their ability to sway opinion. Some of these may be obvious and mentioned here just as gentle reminders. Opposers have sometimes been quick to accuse supporters, so be ready to justify an argument, either yours or perhaps another editor's:

• Thought-terminating clichés, and take care to avoid them as autological phrases unless it provides positive impact – we want editors to really think, and to continue thinking, about the need for these page moves. It will be the opposers who'll benefit from early "stop-thinking" techniques.
  • If you encounter a ttc, ask a valid, deeply probing question. No matter if the opposer does not answer, because other editors will read the discussion, and your question might counter the ttc. The reading editors will hopefully not stop thinking until they see the good in these page moves.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Straw men
• Red herrings
• Ad nauseam arguments – opposers have been very good at clouding the issues with straw men, red herrings and ad nauseam args.
• Legalese from both opposers and supporters, as JFG mentioned above
• Found some useful stuff in the {{propaganda}} & {{relevance fallacies}} navbars that opposers have used in the past. We should realize that no matter how logical and community-consensus packed our rationales may be, some editors who would oppose this move would stop at nothing to prevent it. (Maybe we should ask ourselves, "Wherefore izzat?" or in other words "Why is there such a great sense of pride, honor, even a deep sense of potential loss and literary damage in past opposing arguments?") So we should go forward with the strength of the conviction and consensus of the Wikipedia community.

Those are all good points, but let's also make sure that we're seen to assume good faith. Not only is it Wikipedia policy, but the neutral visitor may be persuaded to join the more civil side of the debating floor. Certes (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Certes, and we agree that civility and objectivity are the keys to running this gauntlet. Also the continued courage of everyone involved. I think it's guaranteed that when we hatch this egg, the peeper won't be boring.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. That was for me the most difficult thing last time. I gained the impression that mild (and sometimes not so mild) disruption and rudeness were used as tactics, just how successfully we will never really know, which is also a difficult thing. See User:Andrewa/How not to rant which largely (not entirely) came out of that discussion.

On the other hand, if we can keep the discussion civil and focussed, that will greatly increase the chances of success. A point probably not lost on the opposition unfortunately... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, another specific thing to watch is arguments that the State is named after the City or vice versa... this turns out to be surprisingly controversial, but it's in any case irrelevant. Perhaps it's covered as a red herring. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, back on Usenet we called it trolling, where it was often fun to "feed the trolls". Heck, I still get a kick out of it sometimes. In a well-focused RM discussion, such peripheral obfuscation in an opposer's argument is better ignored. The flames only get higher, the smoke billows up into the sky to cloud issues, and the perp's intent to draw attention away from guideline- and policy-driven rationales is rewarded. Nothing will lead to "no consensus" faster than arguing with any off-topic fishbait, even if an editor takes it to the troller's user talk page. Even that can run around behind you and bite you on the bum.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That's another issue... these arguments can all be raised in good faith, and I think that's what we ran into last time rather than deliberate trolling. How to deal with real trolling I have no idea... last time I discussed a couple of personal attacks on the users' talk pages as per the policy, and escalated one of these to WP:ANI, but the result at ANI was that two non-admins confirmed that it was a personal attack and both recommended action, but nobody else commented, so AFAIK no admin even looked at it before it was auto-archived with no closure. That was also part of the problem last time IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it bit you on the bum. As I said, the best way to handle a troller (or troll in the modern vernacular – the original was based on fishing and was not necessarly a bad thing) is to completely – completely – ignore the little guy under the bridge.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I really, really wish I could say yes, it's that simple. But consider...

Reading the archives, anyone considering arguing or even !voting for a move would reasonably conclude that they are inviting personal abuse, and that this abuse will go completely unpunished (again, despite the clear policy).

Conversely, anyone opposing the move has every reason to think that they can disrupt the discussion and abuse those supporting it, at no risk of censure or sanction.

The problem is not any offence I might take or have taken. I have a thick skin. But not everyone does, and this probably includes the very people we most want to participate this time, assuming that at least some people decided last time to (understandably) avoid the heat.

WP:ANI and the rest of WP:DR exist for good reasons. I wish it were not so. Andrewa (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and believe me, there have been times when I look back on personal abuse and said to myself, 'coulda woulda shoulda'. Point is, there is a time and place for everything, so if any such abuse from either faction arises, it must be ignored in the RM discussion. If it is strong enough and disgusting enough to require immediate action, then the correct venue is the user's talk page rather than the RM. That might be enough to squelch any further abuse; however, as you've experienced, don't expect too much in terms of redactions nor sanctions. For one thing, abusers in past NY RMs have been shrewd, long-time editors who seem to know just how far they can go (which has been pretty far at times) before the whole house would come down on them. For another thing, maybe they actually are acting in what they think are the best interests of the articles and Wikipedia. If they get outta hand, other editors will make their best decisions, which will be policy- and guideline-based just as long as we don't feed the emotions, the illogic, the expectations, the troll.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of getting into TL;DR territory, I think it's very important to distinguish between trolling, which is deliberate, and disruption and personal attacks, which can both be inadvertent.

This is a point lost on many, see the essay at WP:IPAT for example. That essay does however make some interesting points, as does meatball:DefendEachOther to which it links.

You say maybe they actually are acting in what they think are the best interests of the articles and Wikipedia. I think we need to assume that they are and I hope and believe that I have done this. You say, correctly, that the place for discussions on behaviour is user talk pages in the first instance, rather than the RM itself, and again I agree and think I have done this.

This is all very relevant to the previous discussion. Neither of those I took to WP:DR last time were trolls. That does not (or should not) excuse their behaviour, or lessen the damage. But it does offer some hope that they will correct it, if the matter is properly approached, while the troll is a lost cause and requires a completely different approach.

That may sound as if I think I know how to handle it in the future. Just the opposite, I'm afraid. My response last time was a dismal and obvious failure. So suggestions are welcome, but I don't think it's as simple as WP:IPAT would suggest. Most unfortunately. Andrewa (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The way to deal with fear is to face it headlong. There's been a murder, and the police call in the great Sherlock Holmes. His companion, Dr. Watson, examines the body, "Holmes, whoever did this must have really hated this man! He has been stabbed 17 times, over and over." Dr. Watson swings his arm up and down to add emphasis. Holmes reminds him, "This man was hated by many in this community. It doesn't matter to him what the killer's intentions were. He is past caring."  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree about fear. Being brave isn't about not being afraid, it's about what happens when you are afraid. (I can't remember where I got that from and wish I could.)

But the interesting thing here is that Holmes is not entirely right (as the original at least was often flawed in his logic). Andrewa (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(The post immediately below is in response to this post of mine above, do not be fooled by the outdent. It might help if we stick a bit more closely to wp:mixed indents and the rest of that guideline.) Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is an important fact that "New York the state was named after the city" with regards to there being, or not, a primary topic. Original and derivative use feed into long term significance, and is relevant to the question. Declaring such things "red herring" in the setup is a case of poisoning the well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be an important fact in assessing the long-term significance if it were agreed and, far more important, if the question of primary topic were even under discussion. But it has been decided by RfC that NYS is not the primary topic, so the question is irrelevant, and so raising it in the upcoming discussion would itself be the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, and possibly successfully poisoning it owing to the controversy surrounding the naming. That's my point here. Andrewa (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the link, and the opportunity to clarify. Andrewa (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It might be used to argue a different outcome, such as NYC as the PT. It is presumptuous to declare in the setup that any reference to it is a red herring. That is an opinion to make in debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I suppose it might, but not usefully IMO. If this were Andrewpedia I would call NYC the primary topic, and feel free to raise an RfC if you think that we might get consensus to that effect, but my conclusion is that we won't so I'm adopting Andrew's Principle. Andrewa (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Disagree that it's presumptuous. IMO the question of what was named after what is irrelevant to the move proposal now being considered, but very likely to be raised based on experience last time, so it's good to see whether we can phrase the proposal to lessen its chance of defocusing the discussion (which could be, as you pointed out, poisoning the well). But if you still feel that what was named after what is relevant, then there is nothing stopping you from raising that point in the RM, and this discussion should help you in doing so. Andrewa (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
        • This was and is an interesting point of contention raised in the July 2016 debate and now here. SmokeyJoe, you were the first to object to the 2016 page move with the rationale:

        While there is no PrimaryTopic for "New York", or if there is it is the naturally disambiguated New York City, the status quo is not problematic, as no reader should be astonished, because the two topics are connected, knowledge of one implies knowledge of the other, or at least the astonished reader should welcome and appreciate the education. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

        Both Diego and JFG tried to change your mind to no evident effect. So you apparently think that (1) the state article now titled "New York" should be considered to have long-term significance by virtue of the fact that the state was named after the city, and (2) if a reader is astonished, then they will be educated when they land on an article that confuses them because it was not the article they wanted to read. If I have all this correctly, then can you tell us what we can do to meet your challenge and to garner consensus in this upcoming move proposal? Make us work for it.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

        • I remained opposed largely due to it being unclear what exactly was being proposed. Diego Moya and JFG responded to a non-critical point. I really did not like the line "Should the current name of this page be changed?". I don't sign blank cheques. I expect a proposal to be clear and succinct upfront about what exactly is being proposed. I consider the PT question moot, because none of the NYs are independent of each other, and I did not consider the case to have been made that there was any actual problem with the status quo. TL;DR was a large component. bd2412's needs to fix things is influencing me, although I would have trouble explaining the problem to anyone else. TL;DR is probably the biggest problem here. Extensive prose prepared in a lengthy period before the start of the discussion, asserting certain arguments to be one of various fallacies bothers me greatly on a procedural basis. However long it takes to prepare the pro-argument, I think the debate proper needs to run at least this long. If feel the pro-move side may be perceived as having bamboozled all others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
        • SmokeyJoe, you say I consider the PT question moot, because none of the NYs are independent of each other. If the PT question is indeed moot, then I would oppose a move... but it seems a rather bizarre suggestion, frankly. Most cases of disambiguation are between topics that are not independent of each other, but PT is generally considered relevant. Is there something special about this relationship that makes PT moot? Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
          • "Moot" might be the wrong word, perhaps "inapplicable". I think PT is only important when judging between different topics. New York City and New York State are not different, one is part of the other, one was named after (thus derived from) the other, one dominates the other (which way depends on what you are looking at). When two things are closely related, it doesn't make so much sense to examine which is more significant. Related topics still need to be disambiguated, William Bragg 1915 Nobel Prize–winning physicist for example. Disambiguation needs don't depend on the PT question being logical. I think this is both convoluted and unimportant and would I would prefer to forget it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Inapplicable or any other term does not change the fact that your opinion on this is at odds with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are of course entitled to hold and to promote this opinion as to how we should do things, and to prefer to forget the PT guideline as unimportant. But we should be clear that this is what you are doing here.
            • It seems to be a very similar principle to the rejected Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion, but more general in its scope. Andrewa (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Shall do my best not to patronize you, SmokeyJoe. Your ideas are food for thought, and your influence probably stretches farther than you think. As for your larger concern, this proposal will be as clear and succinct as possible. Others obviously may disagree about the PT question, perhaps because it so clearly leads to the WP:ATDIS answer, "If the topic is not primary, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated." The past and present work of bd2412 concerns all of us since it can be fixed so easily by this proposal. As for TL;DR, this page is merely to keep from making the mistakes of the past, to ensure that all editors who want to become involved have the opportunity to fully understand the proposal and its need. And I think we all might be a little "gun shy" about the possibility that past attempts ended in no consensus and past closers may have been "bamboozled". Mostly, we just don't want to bamboozle ourselves, let alone anybody else.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you Paine. I try to be constructive. Few things bother me, but one exception is being patronised, even if it is response to me saying something stupid or having carelessly revealed my ignorance on something important. I'm not sure my concerns are "large", but am offering the largest of nitpicks. I find bd2412's link maintenance needs to be the most compelling reason "to do something", and I think this compelling reason may be lost if less important things get too much detailed coverage. Apparently I opposed a move last time. I was not terribly committed to the question, and lines of arguments, such as "irreparable harm" I found so ridiculous that I walked away. I can't even remember for which side that argument was. So, TL;DR is my first suggestion of a point to consider (already well taken). My second is that this has the feel of a military staging ground. Proponents being gun shy may explain this well, but opponents may perceive preparations to bamboozle opposition. Mole whacking? It sounds like something that might turn out to be an unfortunate word choice. Good faith objectors are not moles, and whacking is not a ice response.
            On the PT question, I'm not sure whether to me it is irrelevant (agreed, there is no PT), or important because it is looking at the question wrong. I definitely agree, in agreement with the RfC result, that NYS in not the PT of NY. Maybe there is a PT, and it is a missing article. Compare with London. It doesn't make sense to ask: which of Greater London, Greater London Built-up Area, City of London, County of London, History of London is the Primary Topic of London. The answer to that question is Mu_(negative), a word we don't have in English, and so it is hard for us to articulate. I think New York is the same. It needs a concept-dab like article at the base name. No existing article will do, not NYS, not NYC, not Manhattan, not New York metropolitan area, and not History of New York. The last RM was a mess, my contributions contributed to the mess, looking back now, I don't think that NY as a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article got enough attention. I really wish that User:BD2412 would comment on this for me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Lots there, agree with much of it, and yes it would be good to see BD2412 comment. I imagine they will.
            • If you agree that NYS is not the PT, then I'd hope you will support the move. At the moment we are struggling to get "consensus" recognition that there is even a problem to solve. (My view is that consensus on this has long existed, but the system has been gamed to avoid recognising this.)
            • If NYS is not the PT, then there is a problem to solve. The DAB may not be the best solution, but it is an improvement in that it is arguably guideline-compliant (unlike the current situation, for which there is no possible justification in the guidelines) and has practical advantages with respect to mislinkings (again, unlike the current situation, which serves no practical purpose whatsoever). Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
              • I feel likely to support. Last time I didn't appreciate the link maintenance problem. However, I wish to read any opposing !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
                • With respect to whether there is a missing primary topic, I do not think there is. I find this to be more akin to the Chihuahua (state)/Chihuahua, Chihuahua problem than something like Southern United States, which has various meanings because different areas are counted within the definition by different people. There is not a broad meaning of "New York" into which both city and state are subsumed. The state is a distinct political entity with distinctly drawn boundaries, as is the city as a political unit. The implications of intending one or the other are usually clearly cut. If you say that Anna is a diplomat in New York, or Bob dreamed of moving from Topeka to New York to pursue a Broadway acting career, or that a company has offices in London, Beijing, and New York, it is obvious that the appropriate target is the city as a world city and center of arts and commerce. The fact that the entities share a common etymology is trivial to the unique importance of each. bd2412 T 12:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
                  • User:BD2412, if "a company has an office in New York" is obviously a reference to the city, doesn't this mean that NYC is the primary topic of NY? New York should redirect to New York City? That fits the "long term significance" and which came first and from which all others derive, as well as everyone on the world knowing the city, but many not knowing the state, and not vice versa. It fits some of your example fixes, such as this and this. Is this maintenance-wise much worse than NY being the current New York (disambiguation), and, if no to earlier questions, why not New York redirects to New York (disambiguation)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
                    • There is a flip side to the argument, however. If a geological formation extends into New York, or a storm moves up the coast to New York, or a statute is enacted by New York, or a bobcat is endemic to New York, or a bill is proposed by a Senator from New York, then it is understood to be the state. That contextual differentiation is exactly the source of the ambiguity here. bd2412 T 02:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
                      • It sounds like the only good option will be the DAB page, but the flip side arguments run thin for me. I don't hear these things. Instead, snow impacts Upstate New York and rain storms Long Island. Business of the federal senate tends a specialist interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Just to clarify, the "mole whacking" meant to refer to the objections (not the objectors) as "moles", and attempts to counter those objections would be the "whacking". I don't think either Certes or myself would ever think of objectors – good faith types or otherwise – as moles to be whacked.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
              • Oh sure, I never thought that for a second. You are both very polite people. I understand the game and intention (to quickly contain obfuscation by threads on tangential points), which is fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
              • Thanks, Paine, that's exactly what I meant by "whack" and "mole". My answer to "what's the primary topic?" is "none", which I think translates as "mu". Certes (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
                • Pleasure! Paine  
• Claims of a Condorcet paradox should be added to the list to watch out for, see #Not a Condorcet. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In closing

Probably should have a little talk about how we want to word any close request – and when to insert it. The only thing I'd like to see is that we keep it simple, that this upcoming RM be closed by an experienced administrator. I don't think there is a need for more than one closer as long as the closer is a long-trusted admin. We should try to avoid pitfalls like we saw in the July 2016 RM, and especially we should try to avoid a Move review if possible. I am really hoping that we can achieve a decisive consensus to move these pages. I might be wrong about all that, so I wonder what others think about it.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If no one objects, we should go with a standard closing by an admin, then?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Then in accord with WP:RMCI a request to the administrators' noticeboard will be made if and when necessary.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely go with vanilla closing by an uninvolved admin. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• A Move review is not something to be feared. The aim should be a that a move review results in a snow endorse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On past experience, any discussion on this topic is greatly to be feared. We cannot control the close, and so we cannot control the MR. I think we may need to settle for hoping for a vanilla endorse! Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • My meaning was not that we should fear MR, but that we should strive for consensus beginning now that will either help to avoid MR or to ensure endorsement at MR.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree. And I think we are making progress. Whether it is enough... we will see. Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Realistically, the way this will likely pan out is that there will be a fairly even split of !votes. The uninvolved admin will then either close as "moved because the support arguments are better", or "no consensus to move". As you say, we can't predict or control which one of those options the admin will pick, and assuming the admin words the close well, it would probably be upheld in MR, irrespective of which of the two outcomes they go for. If it's no consensus, then we'll be back again in 2018, whereas if it's move, then that's probably the issue settled indefinitely. I wouldn't want us to game the system at all, but the consensus so far on this page is that the majority of us feel the "Move" option is the best for the encyclopedia....  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Another tender consideration

This might be a tender subject for editors. As I was looking for more examples of "(state)" qualifiers, I noticed that there are several articles about Washington (state) that also have that qualifier, such as City government in Washington (state), History of Washington (state), Economy of Washington (state), etc. All of us are probably aware of the navbar {{New York}}:

...and a question arises about the need to move several more article pages:

• Bibliography of New York → Bibliography of New York (state)
• Demographics of New York → Demographics of New York (state)
• Economy of New York → Economy of New York (state)
• Education in New York → Education in New York (state)
• even {{New York}} → {{New York (state)}} (also {{Washington}} → {{Washington (state)}}?)

...and so on. So when New York is qualified to New York (state), this could mean a good deal of work is yet to be done.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Experience suggests that most of the "work" might be in reaching consensus for such moves. Do we want to bundle them in with this proposal, or handle them separately later? And where should the current titles such as Demographics of New York take the reader, bearing in mind that Demographics of New York City also exists? Certes (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

In a situation such as this, where there have been several attempts in the past 13 years to find a solution by page moves, my suggestion would be to take "baby steps". We should probably attempt this page move as it has been proposed and save the more massive effort for after. Although, I could be wrong.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I think you're right. Let's keep the current proposal clear, simple and achievable, but you've raised a good point to consider later. Certes (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's too early to discuss those cases. If the main article gets moved, then there will be plenty of time to have debates on the other articles. I personally don't see a compelling need to move any of them because I don't see complaints about ambiguity between, say, Economy of New York and Economy of New York City; neither do we have thousands of wrong links to fix. — JFG ^talk 18:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

They have the same ambiguity as New York and New York City, other than the lack of minor meanings (no one wrote Economy of New York, Iowa). However, the New York moves are much more important, so I agree that we should sideline Economy etc. for now. Certes (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Deal with the main article; if/when it's moved, deal with other related pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Good to be aware of these possible consequences, but the tail should not wag the dog. Andrewa (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Incoming links as an indication of what editors expect this title to be

In accordance with Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links, a major project to clean up these links wes done. According to BD2412, 22500 links pointing to New York were intended for other articles (I suspect largely for New York City), out of approximately 120600 - which is about 18.6%. Keep in mind that the actual percentage is quite likely higher - both due to users fixing individual links before this project, and due to links from templates. One user, on a sample of 147 pages with backlinks, found that 54% of pages with backlinks had incorrect ones (presumably referring to the city). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Previous RMs

• How does this proposed proposed move relate to the set of previous proposed moves of the page New York. Not reading the archives, I think this proposal is new? I'm not sure it is ok for proponents to team up, and forbid mention of opposing arguments, or that it is a good idea. What are the expected counter-arguments. If there are none, isn't this page overkill? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Anyone with counter-arguments is certainly permitted to come and add them. In case these users are astill unaware of this page, I'll ping some of them: Castncoot, Pharos, Antepenultimate, SmokeyJoe, Muboshgu, Ɱ, Clean Copy. I would also like to point out that looking back at the previous discussion, I didn't find any of the arguments against the rename good enough for me to see any way I could present them in a reasonable way here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Didn't we just have a huge discussion on essentially the same proposal? It seems remarkably soon to do this over again, imo we already came to a resolution.--Pharos (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Firstly, it was officially closed in August 2016; any consensus results in a morotorium, generally (IMO) 6 months. And the move discussion isn't yet officially open. I would also like to point out that one of the claims, namely the need to fix thousands of links, is no longer an issue - we did that without moving the article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Not to put too fine a point on it, while the issue of thousands of misdirected links has been fixed, it is also important to note that bd2412 manually checks and fixes several more newly misdirected links on an almost daily basis. If this were not being done, it would not take long before there would be thousands (5,500–7,500 checked and 1,800–2,500 fixed per year) of newly misdirected links – again.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
          • For the record, it's typically 15-20 per day, with about one third intending New York City, and one in a blue moon intending any of the various other available meanings. bd2412 T 02:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Secondly, the 2016 discussion did not produce a consensus. As it had no proper closure, I wouldn't really say it came to a resolution except than that, by default, the problem remained unfixed. Certes (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Well said. Another good reason to just go for vanilla closure this time, MR in all likelihood either way, but then that's that. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO there were adequate grounds for another RM immediately following the RfC, subsequent to the closure of discussion on the most recent RM, that found consensus that NYS is not the primary topic. This is important new information that was not available for the closers to consider. But we had all been worn down in my judgement, so I didn't pursue that. Now is definitely not too soon for a new RM. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Amount of downloaded content

One important question, in my opinion: How much unwanted content do users who load the wrong page need to download before they can go to the correct page?

• to download the article about the state, they must download 2.16 MB of data (the article and its images)
• to load the disambiguation page, 408 KB.

This would mean that if fewer than 80% of viewers want the article on the state, we're wasting more of their bandwidth than we would be if we placed the dab page at New York, even if you add in the fact that many of the readers will need to load the state's article afterweards. The difference would be much higher if you assume that ther browsers will keep caches of any downloaded files, and use them for the next page they load - which would reduce both by 322KB, making the ratio much higher. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Harm

I note that in the previous RM, one of the panel noted there is harm, and another concluded So, with something of a bleeding heart (because I do feel this RfC thus becomes a missed chance to rectify a glaring and damaging error in Wikipedia's treatment of the issue), I can't help but delaring a no consensus to move. ([3], my emphasis) The context of that second quote was that their vote was the decider, one other panelist having already called consensus to move, and another no consensus. Just another piece of evidence that the current situation is harmful. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that closer's comments were particular eye-openers. While re-reading their context for that second quote, I noted also their statement, "...the argument that the state is somehow the objectively more important and logical superordinate topic based on its size etc. feels devoid of merit to me, since disambiguation is not about objective priority but purely about efficiency in directing readers where they want to go;" (my emphasis). So I have included a usage of "efficiency" in the opening argument. Anybody may please adjust as necessary.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

For another little example of "harm" see this RM comment which explicitly cites "New York" as a precedent for having an article at the base name even if it's not the primary topic. And it's a valid point. It will be interesting to see how the RM closes. Andrewa (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The RM closed as no consensus, and I've now asked there whether there are any other examples.Andrewa (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Andrewa: I can remember some titles in the past (ex. Talk:Daytona) that would have served as examples; however, they've all been moved away from their non-PTs. There may be a few others left, but I can't find any. New York might very well be the last great bastion of anti-policy, -guideline, -RfC and anti-community consensus in general that remains on this encyclopedia. It's certainly the most prominent one, which largely accounts for the ongoing controversy.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite so. Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of "harm", I recall that one argument against moving to a dab page was that Wikipedia would be "irreparably" harmed if we did so. This is serious stuff, ladies and gents.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It was indeed, and I find the fact that such a lightweight argument was even proposed a bit scary. But what is far scarier is that none of the other arguments proposed (several of them listed in the post to which you linked) were any better. And what is really scary is that, despite this (to me) obvious imbalance between the two cases, two of our panel of three were explicitly unable to decide a consensus.

I would guess that when the WikiJournal of Governance and Polity is eventually launched, there will be several articles on this case in the first few months. A clear explanation would be worthy of a PhW at least. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus"

Seems we have consensus among several editors; however, there are still obvious holdouts. An editor below appears to be adamant about not moving these pages, and their "Arguments and evidence against the proposed moves", although filled with holes that were informally addressed, will at this point remain when this proposal goes live. How is it that anyone can not only continue on in obvious denial of community consensus, but actually get others to agree with them, as was done in the previous page move attempt, to the point that a closer would deem it "no consensus"? I consider this sort of successful denial that flies right in the face of policy, guideline, RfC consensus and the consensus of the entire community to be the greatest hurdle of this proposal!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus is supposed to be assessed by viewing the arguments through the lens of policy, not by counting heads. How two of the closing panel failed to assess consensus to move still puzzles me. Even more, admins are now (as of changes since I became one!) expected to exercise a higher level of judgement even when using no sysop powers or authorities... in a sense, you lose some rights as an editor when you are granted "the mop". Now, surely this should apply to ARBCOM too... Surely they should be particularly expected to know and uphold policy? The relevance of this is of course that one of our closing panel last time was an ARBCOM member... and they found no consensus. Andrewa (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a Condorcet

The suggestion that we might have something like a Condorcet paradox (abbreviated Cp) here needs to be handled carefully. We did not discuss it at length last time because the possibility was not even raised until after discussion had closed... by one of the closing panel in fact.

I did not at first take it too seriously, as it didn't look at all likely to me even at first sight, and on closer examination the evidence is clearly against it, see User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York. But it has been raised again here and I now realise it has enormous potential to derail discussion.

• It is counter-intuitive and puzzling... like all paradoxes.
• There is a superficial similarity of this case to a Cp, in that there are three options and no first-round winner, which is the most obvious (but only one) of the necessary conditions for a Cp to exist.
• It is commonly believed that if there are three options and no first-round winner, a Cp is likely (in fact it is possible but highly unlikely).
• Most important, if a Cp does exist, there is no solution... any of the three options has a claim.

It is notable I think that there are exactly two possible and very different (and mutually exclusive) Cp scenarios possible here, and nobody has yet said just which of them they consider to be a possibility, again see User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York.

But most important, the only way to definitively test whether a Cp exists is to hold a round robin of three two-way polls. If a Cp is considered a serious possibility, this proposed RM can be the first of these. It is a good way forward. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Most important, the only way to definitively test whether a Cp exists is to hold a round robin of three two-way polls" No

If you think a condorcet paradox is at play, minimally three separate groups of preferences, but really more like 5-6 separate subgroups, each with blinkered reasons for preferring option A over B over C over A, a better answer is to abandon consensus-unfriendly majoritarian methods. Try independent scoring of options, as I have been suggesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not think that there is a Condorcet paradox at play. But I think that the naive acceptance that there is a good chance we have one, just because there are three options and no first-round winner, was a factor in failing to get a result last time and could contribute to a repeat of that (non) result.

You say "Most important, the only way to definitively test whether a Cp exists is to hold a round robin of three two-way polls" No. I confess I have no idea how to interpret your Wikilink to Mu (negative), even having dabbled in Zen myself, so I just have to assume that you mean that I am wrong and that there is a way to definitively test whether a Cp exists without the two-way tests. I'm very interested to know what that might be!

Agree that we need to abandon consensus-unfriendly majoritarian methods. But I'm afraid I think your scoring is also consensus-unfriendly and majoritan, it just defines majority in a different way. Keep it simple, stick to the existing consensus-based policy, and I think we will get a result. And probably not otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a condorcet paradox is a consequence of multiple groups locking in, in a blinkered fashion, on specific but different questions, that it is as consequence of flawed deliberation, that while possible, it is a distraction and testing for one serves no useful purpose. You are wrong to say it is "most important", it is not important at all. You have posed a question assuming a majoritarian method, and then suggest pursing the majoritarian method to evaluate whether a flaw in the method manifests. As I said before, majoritarian methods are very different to consensus decision making. The mention of a condorcet paradox in the close of the last discussion means that the discussion failed, people were fragmented into groups talking at cross-points, not listening to each other. I for one gave up, stopped listening.

Scoring is, I think, good for consensus because it is good for discussion, not because the scores themselves are mathematically useful. At least they are useful for me, and should be useful for anyone who cares for what my opinion is, given that I still find it complicated and confusing. Writing down scores forces me to acknowledge that moving the DAB page to the basename is acceptable, and therefore must have my support if all other options are not available, even if I would prefer another outcome, such as NY redirection to NYC. I guess I have just said: scoring is good for communication, but not for scoring. If I am not making sense, please just ignore me. I need to get back to your question on my talk pagewas someone else's. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a Cp here. Perhaps someone who supports the status quo, and would oppose either proposed move, could tell us which option (dab at NY or NYC at NY) would be more acceptable to them if there is a consensus for moving away from the status quo. Certes (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that there is no Cp here.

Agree that it would be really useful for supporters of the status quo to consider this, especially in view of the long-obvious consensus (if assessed according to Wikipedia policy) that the status quo is unacceptable. I am very sorry to have to say it, but reluctance to do this (and I think there is some) IMO throws the good faith of those involved into question. As I have said before, this has been a bizarre journey.

But two wrongs do not make a right, and we should not try to game the system just because others seem to be doing so. So I'd like to ask, are there also difficult questions that we {the good guys) should be asking ourselves? Andrewa (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That theory on how a Cp might arise is IMO both flawed and irrelevant. There is no Cp here, it is a mere distraction, and a dangerous one for reasons I have given. And that danger should have been obvious to me when one of the closers raised the subject, and I missed it. But Cp is a subtle topic and as such a good one for pulling the wool over peoples' eyes, including one's own!

Part of the problem IMO is that consensus as Wikipedia assesses it does have elements of majoritism, sufficient for a Cp to possibly exist. Agree that if we could dispense with these it would be ideal. But that is not about to happen. I have attended meetings at which a skilled facilitator said "Right, it's 200 to 6 against the motion, so let's just hear from those six" and ten minutes later we had a unanimous vote in favour. My church has conducted workshops on consensus facilitation from time to time, perhaps we should make attendance at such mandatory for admins etc.. (;->

I'm glad you find scoring useful, and it does seem to have produced a good result for you. But I don't think it will be a useful part of the case for a move, regardless of whether a DAB or NYC ends up at the base name. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are talking to me, the question is whether a DAB ends up at the base name, or the base name redirect to NYC. I strongly oppose moving NYC to NY. Even if NYC is the PT, NYC is the better title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that Even if NYC is the PT, NYC is the better title, but AFAIK nobody is proposing moving NYC to NY, and if they do then I will oppose it too.

I can see how you could have thought I was proposing it... I said regardless of whether a DAB or NYC ends up at the base name and should have said something like regardless of whether a DAB or a redirect to NYC or anything else ends up at the base name.

Yes, some are asking whether a DAB ends up at the base name, or the base name redirect to NYC, but that only becomes relevant if we can get a consensus to move NYS away from the base name, as I believe we can (and even that we have in the past but somehow nothing happened as a result). So first things first. Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the RfC proposal to disambiguate also explicitly include the caveat: "without prejudice of later redirecting it to NYC"? This way someone who doesn't want to have a dab page, but definitely doesn't want it to have NYS there, could still support the proposal. Diego (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point, Diego. Seconded. Certes (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No objection. Not sure that it's necessary or helpful, and think that we should have a pause before any further RM. Andrewa (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

And I have now reversed some of my position on this, see #Improvement vs perfection below. Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Diego: Not sure I understand "RfC proposal"? Anyway, the problem with including caveats – any such caveats – is that editors will readily ask, "Why not do it now?". And we will become quicksanded, mired in the muck of a peripheral "Is NYC the PT or not?" discussions. That might happen in any case; however, how does it help if those of us who support a page move that disambiguates the NY base name actually instigate the RM-killing fog?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made a second attempt at explaining why it's not a Condorcet at User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York simplified. Comments welcome at User talk:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York simplified. Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Improvement vs perfection

Talk:List of place names of Native American origin in New England#Requested move 22 May 2017 is an interesting and not unique precedent.

There is no consensus as to the eventual title, and evidence both ways. But there is consensus that the proposed move is an improvement. And the RM was closed as moved with No prejudice against opening a fresh RM if another name or format is identified.

I think we should put this explicitly in the RM proposal... something along the lines of no prejudice against a fresh RM if consensus is achieved that NYC is the PT. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a fresh RM be the process to achieve that consensus? Perhaps something more along the lines of no prejudice against a fresh RM to achieve consensus that NYC is the PT. bd2412 T 21:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, that's much better. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

...or even no prejudice against a fresh RM to seek consensus that NYC is the PT, so we don't appear to prejudge its result. Certes (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Even better. Andrewa (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have become very comfortable with the need to move NYS off the base name, and am comfortable with putting the NY dab page at NY temporarily to help provide evidence as to whether editors in practice think NYC is the NY PT, or there is no PT. If there is no PT, the dab page can stay, but if all new links to the dab page intend the city, that will call for the base name to redirect to NYC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say perhaps temporarily, so as again not to prejudge the outcome.

And again, it would be good if the bot that tells people that they've linked to a DAB kept a log (it or the system may already) so that we could measure this. Andrewa (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

ec. Yes, good point. perhaps temporarily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And I now see that this was proposed above [4] and I opposed it there... just another instance of my changing my mind. It happens. Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Drifting away

@all: I'm a bit puzzled by the turn this discussion is taking. What should have been a simple exercise in building a reasonable move request has turned into a wall of text trying to pre-empt every possible opinion and argument that may be expressed by people when we actually open the discussion. This sounds like a very wrong way to defend the move and reach the goal. I would not support opening the move request in this state; I don't really know what to suggest except WP:TNT, starting from scratch and throwing the move request out there for real community discussion. "Regulars" here know the pro and contra arguments well enough to make the case. What do y'all think? — JFG ^talk 19:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with being prepared? I see this as improv rehearsal, a warming-up exercise for when the real thing starts rolling. When we finally are in the spotlight, having a clear idea of the main points we want to express and what's really relevant should help us avoid falling into useless tangents, which were the bane of the previous discussion. Anything that prepares us for a productive move discussion is a good thing, IMHO. Diego (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree it is not ready to go live. But I think we are making progress.

It is certainly helping to clarify my thoughts. But I still have some serious questions about what happened last time and how best to avoid a repeat. Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think many people thought last time that we all knew the "pro and contra arguments", and yet we got blown out of the water. If we start from scratch, we'll just come up with the same major policy and guideline argument we had last time. The only new material is the RfC that brought down the house on NY as PT. JFG, I have thought for some time now that it is you who should lead this motley crew, so I think it would be a good thing if you would just tear apart this section and word it precisely how you think it should be worded. I hate to sound patronizing, because that's the last thing on my mind; however, I consider you the guru of concise, to-the-point discussion initiation. I know there is still something needed here, and maybe that something is still rattlin' 'round in that mind of yours. I'm confident that if there is something being missed, something that can be used to clinch this thing, we'll find it, but only with a lot of help from you.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG, why don't you prepare a de-waffled proposal in your user space? Not sure about this leadership thing, but agree that you have a gift for getting to the point (and from a logician that is high praise) and we do need a proposer (or "nom" for short) eventually. Andrewa (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify the leadership thing, I meant that I thought that JFG would lead off this proposal by wording it in their own succinct terms and then going live. I look at their RfC intro and it makes me know how long-winded I can be in my writing.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I attempted a brief proposal a while ago in User:Certes/New York. We've moved on since then, and what I produced is no longer enough, but please recycle any bits you find useful. Certes (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent proposal. On first reading I can't even see what we need to add.

Perhaps expand the very last point to read something like To argue from this that there is no consensus is a circular argument...

And/or, expand To minimize disruption for readers... to To minimize disruption for readers and provide maximum support for editors..., the point being that under this proposal, anyone linking to New York will get a talk page message and will hopefully fix the link themselves.

But I'm even wary of those extra words of clarification... we can use them if the discussion questions those points.

Even if we were to adopt Certes' proposal as it stands, I would not consider this one a waste of time. Just the opposite, it has clarified my thinking a great deal, changed my opinion on some things, and generally prepared the way. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

My draft was based on this page, especially Paine's list of counterarguments. All I added was brevity. Certes (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood. And that is a critical addition. Part of the problem last time was rants and/or walls of text. Part of the solution is to be concise ourselves... It may even need to be the whole solution to that particular tactic.

My question now is, have we lost anything important? Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

To avoid appearing to be an ideological pedant, I've added a few words at the end of the introductory paragraph to state the purpose of the change. We can probably improve that sentence but it's a starting point. Certes (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Kind of a meta question is there a reason this draft is being made as a talk subpage instead of as a RFC subpage? Having it a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment would allow for easy meta and drafting discussions to be separate from the developing proposal and would allow a clearer view of it. PaleAqua (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be wrong IMO to make this an RfC or to risk making it look like one. It should be a vanilla RM. A multi-move, moving both the NYS article and the DAB, but otherwise as simple as they come. It's likely to be complex enough without making it more so. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Indexes and moving forward

I have just created Wikipedia:List of New York City and New York State move discussion page sections and Category:New York City and New York State move discussion pages and intend to populate them both over the next week or so. Any help appreciated!

It has now been almost a week since there were any updates to User:Certes/New York, and it has no talk page at all. Does this mean we're happy with it, or unhappy with it, or still thinking about it? Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am not happy with "this proposal takes the view that there is no primary topic. The alternative view, which would lead to New York becoming the title of (or a primary redirect to) the New York City article, is not being proposed here". I am unsure of how unhappy. I am likely to argue that the proposal begins with an unsound assumption. ---SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely happy with it either... But I think it's a matter of phrasing rather than substance. See User:Andrew/New York RM draft !vote for how I would handle that problem. Or, how can we phrase it better? Andrewa (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As author, I'm not entirely happy with the substance. Putting myself in the position of a reader typing "New York", unaware of all the efforts going into making that work, I'd be equally happy to see the city article or the dab. I moved over to the dab side because I thought it more likely to reach consensus as a halfway house between the stateists and the cityists. (Digression: it would also make careless wikilinks easier to fix.) I wish the opponents would reveal whether my guess at their preference for dab over city is correct, as this would defuse the "unsound assumption" argument. Either way, please feel free to improve the phrasing. It's only a draft. If it's going to come into play then we should probably move it out of user space - any suggestions for a new title? Certes (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The question of substance is, is NYC the PT of New York? And I concede that on the evidence to date, it is. But on recent experience, evidence can't of its own produce consensus.
    • So... do we perhaps need an RfC on whether NYC is the PT of New York, before finalising the RM? Andrewa (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I think so. Certes (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've attempted a fix, see #Boldly removed the PT claim. Andrewa (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Browsing the archives, I seem to see a lot of support for NY redirects to NYC, as well as NY redirects to or becomes the dab page. Two examples: Talk:New_York_(state)/Archive_5#new_york_--.3E_NYC & Talk:New_York_(state)/Archive_3#Hi_there_I_have_a_proposition. This is clearly an open question. I think this question needs to be seriously considered, not declared off-topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (I do find these pointlessly bulleted discussions annoying.) I think it needs to be both seriously considered, and off-topic for the next RM.
    • I reset my dot point because I was not replying to your 01:02, 18 May 2017 post. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I do not understand... let's discuss at user talk. Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, we could propose the RM as New York State article -> New York (state) and propose to point New York to the City, as either a primary redirect or as the article title. That would work for me too.
  • There are two problems:
    • This does not have the practical advantages of having the DAB at the base name.
    • It's not obvious how to decide whether New York is to be a primary redirect or the name of the New York City article, without again running the gauntlet of a three-way poll.
  • Either way, we should plan another RM in a years' time to definitively settle the question of primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I thought NY redirects to NYC would have exactly the same practical advantages of having the DAB at the base name. No mainspace link should be linking to the redirect, that would create a double redirect. However, in the time it takes to fix the linking error, the reader is taken to the page they probably wanted, because NYC is the PT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • No... it would only create a double redirect if the user were creating a redirect rather than a wikilink. And even then, the bot would "fix" it and create another wrong link. Andrewa (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        • OK, not a double redirect, but a link to the redirect would be a flag for wikilink error checking, and the vast majority of the time, linking to NYC would probably be intended. Most people expect NY to be NYC, because it is the primary topic, and having NYS at NY has created confusion. NYC is a way more interesting article, it has more history, more character, more incoming links. NYS is only interesting for some specific political things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          • How would it be a flag for wikilink error checking?
          • But the more I learn about this, the more fascinating the city becomes, and the more boring the rest of the state appears by comparison. Is that the real problem? Are we threatening to take away the best claim to fame that upstate NY has? We have certainly hit a nerve for some reason. (My pet theory is still that someone well-connected off-wiki has made a bar-room bet.) I try to imagine now it feels to be a resident of Albany, New York... it's bad enough that "What is the capital of New York?" is a trick question worldwide. But what is worse, nobody really cares. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          • On the narrow issue of wikilink checking, I think a primary redirect leaves us in a marginally better position to today. Links to the New York redirect would need changing manually to New York City, New York (state) or one of the less prominent topics, but at least we'd be linking to an article rather than a redirect. For comparison, a dab would reduce the wikilink problem by invoking DPLbot, but a move of the city article to New York would leave us with a manual task similar to the current one. As for the interim situation (after a careless link arrives but before it is reviewed), is a link to the most likely topic better than a link to dab? I'm minded to say "if and only if the most likely topic is primary", and the jury is still out on that one. Certes (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
            • No... If New York becomes a primary redirect to NYC, then wikilinks to New York intended to point to the city do not need changing. They would need reviewing for the moment, but just because a whole generation of editors has now grown used to having the NYS article at New York. That is one reason I like the idea of going to a DAB at New York now, and (probably) having the RfC and/or move to (probably) recognise NYC as the PT in a years' time. It gives people a year to get used to linking to New York (state)| (note the pipe trick) rather than just New York, during which time if they link to New York, they'll get a note from the bot. If we go straight to the primary redirect from New York to the NYC article, they'll get no such warning, and we'll have a whole new batch of mislinkings. Andrewa (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
              • True up to a point, but it will always be natural (for American editors at least) to write [[Anytown]], [[New York]]. In that restricted context, NYS is the obvious meaning. I wonder what Washington and Georgia do about that problem. Certes (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The point is, even if we go the wrong way now and the RM in a years' time corrects it, that still eventually gives a good result, and meantime an acceptable one. If we try for a three-way poll now, we'll quite possibly have another non-result, and the status quo will prevail. And next year (or later) we start all over. Andrewa (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Thanks for the category. For my own part, I'm in the "still thinking about it" camp. Stay tuned. — JFG ^talk 05:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at the list too... it's a bit clearer and more comprehensive than the one at the FAQ. Andrewa (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey on next steps

There has been a lot of useful discussion here. What do we think the next step should be?

1. Raise a RM for New York to become a dab
2. Raise a RM for New York to redirect to New York City
3. Raise a RM for change, keeping both options 1 and 2 open
4. Open a RfC to decide whether NYC is the PT
5. Discuss further here; we're not yet ready
6. Other

- Certes (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Poll

• Option 1, with a compact and strong rationale providing positive, compelling and policy-compliant arguments. Don't dabble in other options; that creates too much uncertainty. The path is clear and perfectly in line with Wikipedia guidelines and best practices. I am working on carving well-focused arguments, with inspiration from your draft. — JFG ^talk 00:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with JFG; the clear answer is #1, "Raise a RM for New York to become a dab" (i.e., at Talk:New York (disambiguation)). This should be a simple and straightforward proposition to determine whether there is consensus, at this time, that a disambiguation page at this title would be an improvement over the current situation. The "New York City" option has already been asked about in the last RM, and I think we should consider the disambiguation question before returning to this. I also think that we should avoid any multi-step or multiple option discussions at this time. I think we've discussed as much as we need to discuss, procedurally. bd2412 T 00:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 is the best choice, which provides greatest improvement and highest resolution of mislinking problems. Possibly revisit option 2 at a later date when it is hoped that most editors will then be aware that "New York" might mean the city, the state and other things "NY" depending on context.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• One or five. Probably five, then one when others have had a go at improving User:Certes/New York, User:Certes/New York redirect (although I hope that won't get support, it's option 2, and it doesn't have much traction as of yet), User:Andrewa/New York with no view on PT and User:Andrew/New York RM draft !vote. No hurry. And then if option one succeeds, revisit in a year and probably move the DAB back and make a primary redirect to NYC, based on that years' experience. Option 3 is the one to be avoided. Andrewa (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1. Just get on with it now. I agree with the suggestion somewhere above to let JFG draft the rationale, and others can then comment once that's done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Much looking forward to JFG's work now in progress. I hope my variant might get a look too as they draft it, but will probably defer to their wisdom (I can contribute to logic but my wisdom has often proved to be in atrophy, unfortunately). Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The bot

DPL bot is a very good piece of coding IMO, but I'm not sure whether it leaves exactly what we want to consider a possible second move in a years' time. Perhaps ask the author to provide a special log. Andrewa (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar to when I notified a few editors that {{Redr}} had been deprecated and replaced with the {{Rcat shell}}. They all began to use the shell after I notified them. So when an editor (and it doesn't have to be a new editor – I still screw up on occasion and add a dablink to an article) inadvertently links to a dab, the bot notifies them to go back and dab the link. Presently, there may be three possibilities:

1. each day, 15–20 new and different editors link to the base name, NY, and 1/3 of those links are meant for NYC and must be fixed,
2. 15–20 base name links are made each day by the same editors over and over again,
3. some combo of 1 and 2.

So my guess is that #3 is correct and that the percentage of #2 is high. After awhile following the success of this proposal, the #2s will disappear and only the #1s will need to be handled by the bot. We might be able to reevaluate after a time, say a year or so, and take further action based upon how big the #1 problem still is at that time.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

My guess is also 3, in fact the others seem rather unlikely. (And congrats on the perfect use of the indenting and bulleting Wikitext... It's no secret that this is a pet peeve of mine, and has IMO often disrupted discussion, often but perhaps not always accidentally. I do not see what is so hard...)

But my question still is, can we extract the information we want from existing logs, edit and contribution histories etc, and if not, should we ask for a special log, ping or flag? I've found botmasters more than willing to help with all sorts of questions in the past, even ones that probably seemed silly to them. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Andrewa! I'm sure you know by now that another phrase for "pet peeve" is "easily pushed button". We all have those. It's up to objectors to find them and use them, and it's up to us to keep them in check. As for your question, my guess is that it's a pretty simple thing for the bot master to build a usable database of #1s and #2s following the success of this RM.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Boldly removed the PT claim

Certes and SmokeyJoe, I have boldly removed the claims that there is no PT from User:Certes/New York, and I think the argument has survived intact. Comments? Andrewa (talk)

I think the new idea of a RfC on NYC as PT is a good one, though I'm not sure which way I'd !vote. We should either take Andrewa's change further or revert it, depending on the result of that RfC. I think either a proposal for dab or a proposal for a primary redirect New York -> NYC would be clearer than a hybrid proposal for "maybe one but maybe the other, we're not sure", and that RfC would help us decide which version to put forward. Perhaps we should move "my" page to somewhere/New York as dab and create another version somewhere/New York as redirect. I'm not sure whether User:Certes/ is an appropriate prefix for "somewhere" or if this is a good time to make them more inviting to other editors by emerging from userspace. Certes (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we either go with my changes or the RfC, but not both. Either makes the other unnecessary.

If the RfC finds that NYC is the PT, then we just go for that, and rewrite much of the proposal. But we lose the practical advantage of the bot messages.

If the RfC finds no PT (or at least that it's not NYC... but there seems no other contender) then we revert my changes. Easy. Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted my changes and instead created a derivative at User:Andrewa/New York with no view on PT so we can consider and maybe work on both options. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Known unknown

Here's something that I don't think has been brought up before but may be relevant. A: "We've won the franchise for New York!" B: "Great, I'll check how many new customers we have." (fx: taps keyboard) B: "Oh... did you mean the city or the state?" In this case, making New York a dab page turns a dangerous unknown unknown into a known unknown, prompting the reader to resolve an ambiguity on which they might previously have jumped to a wrong conclusion. Certes (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Very true. Even assuming the person didn't mean they'd won the franchise for New York, Texas (population 20)...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of arguments and evidence against the proposed moves

(Moved to a subsection, since this will not be included in the discussion in chief bd2412 T 17:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)).

To editor Castncoot: Would you still like the above argument included in the formal proposal when it goes live?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I really haven't given it much thought yet, but I don't seem to have any objection at this time. Castncoot (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that the informal response had no effect on your argument. It will be included when this proposal becomes official unless you say otherwise.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Below is the informal response to the above argument:

Thanks, Castncoot – so you say that it's okay to keep things as they are as long as someone has an algorithm to check 15–20 links per day (5500–7500 per year) and fix 1/3 of those (1800–2500 per year)? It's also interesting that you would use a term like "auto-disambiguated" to apply to the state article's present title. I'm curious – exactly what motivates this train of thought? I mean, in light of the policy- and guideline-driven arguments and evidence above, how can you or anyone think that the bare, raw "New York" title is anything but ambiguous? Again, thank you for allowing this to be addressed prior to this RM.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple. The vast majority of references to "New York" apply either to the City or the State. Since the City has nearly universally been supported to be addressed by the New York City article, then that just leaves the State to be referenced as New York by process of elimination for the vast majority of the remaining references to the term "New York". For completeness' sake, obviously, there has always been a New York (disambiguation) page as well, to address other, minor references to the term. Finally, editors are always going to add new ambiguous "New York" links with new edits – that's simply human nature and would not (as it cannot) be fixed by any move; what's more important is that a functional algorithm has indeed been created and is operational on an ongoing basis to tackle these new ambiguities. Castncoot (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A far better solution, Paine, would be if bd2412 were to be able to simply add a feature to the algorithm whereby all newly created ambiguous wikinks to the term "New York" direct to the current disambiguation page. I wouldn't have a problem with that. Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) This is not really an "algorithm" with "features" but manual work by a diligent editor whose time could be better spent elsewhere if the ambiguous term had a disambiguation page. That solution works well for most terms with no primary topic; I'm not aware of any other article whose links need to be patrolled and fixed on this scale. Certes (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, why would we want to point all new links to the disambiguation page, rather than pointing links intending the city to New York City? bd2412 T 17:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Because there's no way that we can get into the editor's head to determine what they mean every time. And there is already a disambiguation page to direct to. Obviously bd2412's work is heralded, and I'm merely suggesting an upgrade to Version 2.0 now, as there's always room for improvement. Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We have disambiguators who do this kind of work every day across numerous comparable disambiguation pages. What we do not do is point a link to a disambiguation page if the intended meaning can be solved. Note that if this becomes a disambiguation page, editors adding a link to it will automatically receive a notice asking them to fix it. bd2412 T 02:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Castncoot: so it seems that it's not so "simple", is it.

...editors are always going to add new ambiguous "New York" links with new edits – that's simply human nature and would not (as it cannot) be fixed by any move...

I'm certainly glad that we are talking about this stuff now prior to the next RM. It's good to get these things out of the way. If moving a page from a raw title to a qualified one, such as New York → New York (state), does not fix the "human nature" problem you note, then why have such moves been used in the past to do just that? "Washington" was moved to "Washington (state)" because editors wanted to fix links that were being made to "Washington", just as links to "New York" continue to have to be fixed. It is clear that your statement is not supported by the facts.

...a functional algorithm has indeed been created and is operational on an ongoing basis to tackle these new ambiguities.

Good to see that you have created an algorithm! When do you plan to put it into operation? Those editors such as bd2412, who have been manually checking 15–20 links per day and fixing 1 out of every 3 that is misdirected, will be glad to know they can move on to other tasks.

A far better solution, Paine, would be if bd2412 were to be able to simply add a feature to the algorithm whereby all newly created ambiguous wikinks to the term "New York" direct to the current disambiguation page. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Yes, Castncoot, with all due respect you have shown that you have no problem at all ignoring the consensus of the Wikipedia community, which is clearly stated in the lead at WP:DAB under "important aspects to disambiguation":

Making the links for ambiguous terms point to the correct article title. For example, an editor of an astronomy article may have created a link to Mercury, and this should be corrected to point to Mercury (planet).

So if, as you suggest, new links are "fixed" to point to New York (disambiguation), the consensus of the community is to make the link point to the correct title. Many editors even have various scripts to find such ambiguous links and make them point to the correct title. New York is no exception.

None of the above addresses what really bothers you, does it Castncoot. You have stated that moving the state page will cause "irreparable harm":

15.Strongly oppose a move. Strongly oppose direction of the term "New York" to a primary disambiguation page as well. Wikipedia, New York, and New York City would all be irreparably harmed, and corresponding Wikiproject and Category pages would be undermined. The consequences would have reverberating, devastating consequences all around.

That's what really bothers you, isn't it. And yet, beyond stating your opinion that page views would dramatically decrease (for which you have offered no evidence), you have not fully explained how all this devastation would come about. Still waiting for that.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to Castncoot, page views would decrease. Those readers who currently type New York, find themselves on a state article they didn't intend to read and then have to navigate to the city article they wanted (or just give up) would no longer accidentally visit New York. In my view, that would be an improvement. Certes (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In an effort to continue to be fair to Castncoot, who specifically noted:

Both the City and the State would collectively lose thousands of pageviews daily, because once people get entrapped by a dab page, a (significant) proportion will lose interest and not pursue it any further. Their mind will wander, the phone will ring, they'll receive a text, they won't want to bother going into the weeds of the dab page, etc., etc., etc. Please tell me how this helps Wikipedia or either one of these articles. It's absolutely a lose-lose-lose situation! Unfortunately, many readers literally have to be spoon-fed!!! Meaning that many readers have to be whisked on a flying carpet right into either one of these real articles when they mindlessly type in the term "New York"...

If this is true then it should be thoroughly addressed before this RM goes live. And even if this is not true or only partially true, it does sound like a very strong concern from an editor who has several years experience on Wikipedia and who has edited in the New York universe from the beginning. It should also be noted that this argument from Castncoot has before, and might again, be a "turning point to 'no consensus'" argument if used in the upcoming RM.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Whoever sitteth on this carpet and willeth in thought to be taken up and set down upon other site will, in the twinkling of an eye, be borne thither." (For ref, see Magic carpet.) Technology has moved on but the principles still hold true. Rather than troubling to sit on the carpet, we now visit a disambiguation page; we express our will in thought by selecting the appropriate link from an easily understood menu of topics which could be called New York; and in however many eye-twinkles our device takes to render a substantial HTML page we are borne thither. What the carpet did not do was to take the rider (who actually wanted to go to the seaside) randomly to the local souq to read a fascia bearing the words For the seaside, see Beach. Certes (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I think it has to be decided which is actually better:

1. I am a gentle reader who types in or clicks on the present New York, and like 1 out of 3, I want to read about NYC. I land on the state article where I read:

This article is about the state of New York. For the city, see New York City.[...]

or

2. I am a gentle reader who types in or clicks on the proposed New York, and like 1 out of 3, I want to read about NYC. I land on the dab page where I read:

New York City, the most populous city in the United States, located within the territory of the state of New York

as the second link just below:

New York most commonly refers to:

Which is the best choice? Do we leave it like it is now, or are there definite advantages to making these page moves, and if so, what are they and what makes them better? We are compelled to keep in mind that, although policy, guideline and community consensus would have us decide on #2 above, arguments like the one from Castncoot and other objectors have worked what seems like miracles to render "no consensus"; ergo, there have been no enduring page moves in thirteen years of effort.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) If the answer is 1. then we need to be clear about the reasons. If we agree that policy, guidelines and community consensus don't apply to New York because it has certain specified differences from other cases then that's the end of the matter. But if we choose 1. because policy, guidelines and community consensus are generally wrong and don't apply elsewhere, then we ought to widen the discussion to a more general review and demotion of disambiguation pages throughout Wikipedia. So is New York uniquely special, or are the policies broken? Certes (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Such hypothetical arguments are best left for the actual move discussion. — JFG ^talk 20:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. It might be better, though, to try to hash all this out prior to an RM, simply because we can expect a similar amount and type of opposition as has been seen in past RMs. So we might want to strive for consensus before the fact.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the answer is #2, if only to ease the "pain" of editors like bd2412 who must work almost daily just to check 15–20 links and fix 1/3 of them. If #1 is chosen, then it should be treated as an exception to the policy and guideline, an exception to the community consensus. This does happen, I've noted. Sometimes a community consensus has been overruled by an exceptional case; however, those exceptions I've seen were also thoroughly supported by a policy or guideline, which this New York case is NOT. So just off the top of my head, #2 should be the choice of all editors, because (a) to continue in this way means that thousands of links have to be checked and fixed every year, and (b) there has never been a policy- nor guideline-driven argument to keep the state article titled "New York" that would vie with the reasons to comply with present community consensus on the matter.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this raises issues complex enough to need a subsection of its own... but briefly...

Firstly and probably most important, if we accept this argument, we would never have a DAB at a base name at all... we'd have to rewrite and rename the primary topic criteria so that the most likely search term was always at the base name, even if there's no primary topic. That's a change of policy whose impact dwarfs anything we've considered to date.

Secondly, this cuts both ways... it's equally an argument for taking those readers who want New York City when they type New York straight there, rather than risk losing them when the 'phone rings. Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth wrote to Castncoot That's what really bothers you, isn't it. I think that refers to the possible loss of page views to the NYS article. If so, then isn't that promotion of the state? It would explain a lot. Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more issues it raises... things that we should in glorious hindsight have raised long ago. It was suggested at one stage that the views of those associated with the article should be given more weight, and in selecting the panel we agreed to have someone from New York on it for "balance". But this is all the exact opposite of our normal practice. Someone accused us of "cherry-picking" the panel, and I did not take it up but perhaps this was their concern. Our normal practice would be to give equal weight to contributors to the article as to all other editors, but to discount the views of those with a close association to the topic as having a COI... whether or not they were contributors to the article, members of the relevant Wikiproject, whatever.

Of course the primary requirement in dealing with COI is disclosure. Lots going on. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, without disclosure there is little that can be done. Over the past history of thirteen years of page-move attempts, I found a lot of objection rationales that, on the surface, were and are seen as STEWARDSHIP. Since there were no COI disclosures, then there was no way of telling if the protective rationales were anything more than custodial stewardship, a sincere effort to keep an article clean and encyclopedic, title and all. All we can really do without disclosure is follow the pillar.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Very good point about stewardship. And agree that wp:5P4 is the best defence. Without disclosure it is very difficult, which is why the policy that disclosure is mandatory is so strongly worded, and why an indefinite block is generally automatic when deliberate non-disclosure is finally established. But it's not impossible, because there are signs of undisclosed COI, and wp:COIN deals with these regularly.

Some COI has been disclosed, and in glorious hindsight should have been challenged at the time. I'll have a look for these disclosures when I find the time.

IMO some of the past discussion reeks of COI, both disclosed and otherwise. That is past, but there are ways of dealing with it while respecting 5P4, and also respecting both wp:AGF and wp:PRIVACY. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrewa! You have educated me – again.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope I am not making it seem easy to counter COI, whether disclosed or not. It is going to be very tricky indeed IMO. But I am hoping it is possible. Andrewa (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not making it seem easy. I know it's not easy. If it were easy, then more editors would be handling it. Maybe we should ask an expert or two to monitor this proposal from beginning to end. Just a thought.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot (yes, welcome back!), you say The wikilink misdirection issue was the biggest reason to consider such a move. This may be the opinion of some, but it is certainly not mine and as the proposer of record for the last RM surely my opinion counts too? The main argument I put was simply that the then (and current) title violates our naming conventions, and for no obvious reason. The damage this violation causes (such as the mislinkings) mainly serves to demonstrate that these naming conventions are correct (as they normally are).

You then say There is no non-ideological reason remaining for such a proposed move. I'm fascinated... is compliance with our policies, guidelines and practices what you mean by ideological? Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the rationale for the moves is not mindless compliance with policy. It is to improve Wikipedia in a small but very practical way. We are quoting policies, guidelines and practices to support our proposal, but they are our tools rather than our masters. Certes (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, well said and hear, hear! I have been striving to make that point but not with such clarity.

Our bottom line is reader experience, and wp:5P5 is that we have no firm rules. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. But the rules are normally right on the money (and otherwise why have them) and it's normally only necessary to go to questions of practicality when we have some reason to suspect that the rules are wrong.

This has been a rather bizarre journey in that there has never been any case made that the rules are wrong in this case... not a single shred of evidence or argument. But for reasons still unclear to me, a significant, vocal and committed group of editors want an exception made anyway, and have had a great deal of success! Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Arby break

Drafts of some my arguments against for the section above. PaleAqua (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Only two articles can be considered candidates as primary name for New York. The article covering the State of New York and the article covering New York City.
• The title New York has long referred to the State of New York.
• New York City; NYC; and New York, New York are used more often for the city compared to use of New York State; the State of New York; the Empire State; NYS for the state. See this ngram] for an example of this. Note that "New York State" was used a lot less often compared to "Empire State" as compared to "Big Apple" vs "New York City". And thus New York City is a better primary name for the article on the city.
• The state of New York includes New York City and thus linking directly to New York is more accurate than linking to just the city.

PaleAqua (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Some comments.

Only two articles can be considered candidates as primary name for New York. The article covering the State of New York and the article covering New York City. Agree. However neither is being proposed here. The third possibility is that there is no primary topic.

The title New York has long referred to the State of New York. Agree.

And it has also long referred to New York City of course. Andrewa (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Was talking about the title on Wikipedia itself. PaleAqua (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In which case, true but irrelevant (and dangerously so) at this stage. On the one hand consensus can change, and this RM is about what the pages should be named now. On the other hand, past consensus is relevant in two senses. One of these of course is the policies and guidelines, which are considered as they themselves represent consensus, which we assume prima facie to be current, and if not then they should be changed. But perhaps more important for this particular discussion, there is of course the no consensus clause that states that, in closing a move discussion, the past history of the name is considered if (and only if) there is no consensus either way. The danger is, last time this clause was misused to argue during the discussion that there should be no move. Andrewa (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

New York City; NYC; and New York, New York are used more often for the city compared to use of New York State; the State of New York; the Empire State; NYS for the state. See this ngram] for an example of this. That ngram doesn't show that at all.

Note that "New York State" was used a lot less often compared to "Empire State" as compared to "Big Apple" vs "New York City". No. The hits on Empire State include phrases such as Empire State Building.

And thus New York City is a better primary name for the article on the city. I'm unsure of what you mean by a primary name for the article, but this doesn't seem to follow.

If you mean that the article on NYC should not be moved from its present title New York City, it is not being proposed here that it should be moved. The proposal is to move the NYS article and the DAB, and only those two. Andrewa (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The state of New York includes New York City False. Parts of NYC are in other states.

and thus linking directly to New York is more accurate than linking to just the city. No. This is essentially the rejected HLJC. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am just increasingly convinced that NYC is the PT of NY. The rejection of the flawed essay notwithstanding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was inconclusive. For me it's borderline and I could support either move but I think that, for many others, NYC is not the PT. As a tie-breaker rather than a primary argument, a dab page at least means that carelessly added text such as Doe was born in Schenectady, New York will get flagged as needing attention. Certes (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If agreed NYC is the PT of NY, nothing should link to NY, so for careless linking repairs, it's no different, is it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a large difference to editors who find and fix the NY links. The objective we seek is to make it so that such jobs don't have to be done manually so much. After the proposed page moves, if a careless link were to arise, then a bot will leave a message on the careless editor's talk page to inspire them to disambiguate the link. If it's not fixed, then several editors have scripts to easily find the link and popups to easily fix it. If we title the city article with the NY base-page name, then careless editors' links to NY will still have to be manually checked and fixed.

I actually tend to agree that NYC is the PT, mostly because of the global users of "NY", who tend to mean the city over all else; however, this is a very contentioius subject among editors, and many would disagree in one of two ways: either they would argue that neither NYS nor NYC is the PT, or they would continue to argue that NYS is the PT. While one has been dealt with by an RfC, the other has not. I tend to think that an argument for NYC as PT might be better left to a future discussion after we fix the present problems. I'll try to tone down the proposal to be more open to NYC as potentially the PT.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We want to give all three options a fair hearing, but discussing them together could open the door to a muddled debate with no majority for any outcome. I'm almost inclined to suggest three discussions - AvB, BvC and CvA - in the hope that one option will win both its comparisons. At worst it will confirm that we have a Condorcet paradox. Certes (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there are two main contenders for a primary topic at Heavy metal (Heavy metal music and Heavy metals) does not mean that a Condorcet paradox follows. Other meanings see minimal usage, but we don't dismiss their existence altogether because they do come up from time to time. About one of every hundred links that I fix is intended for something other than either the city or the state, the primary incidences including New York (magazine) (which celebrates its fiftieth year in publication next year), the Port of New York and New Jersey (from which "and New Jersey" is often omitted), the Province of New York (which figures into historical contexts, and which, by the way, also included all of what is now New Jersey, Delaware, and Vermont), and numerous sports teams and universities. An editor writing that New York won the World Series is referring to a baseball team, not a municipal entity. Comparing the total page views for the top ten likely targets, the city comes in first place, but only gets 45% of the total views. Of course, that is the situation with the primary topic title occupied by the article on the state. The only way to be sure how many page views either article would get if that was not the case is to have the disambiguation page at New York, for at least some period of time. bd2412 T 21:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the matter of Condorcet paradoxes. It wan't raised in the discussion last time until the closing comments by one of the panel, and I'd forgotten all about it, but it seems to have been a factor in the decision so we can expect it to be raised again.

This does not seem to be a case of a Condorcet paradox (hence Cp), see User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York for why I say this.

But just the same, making this a three-way discussion does risk making it look like one, IMO. It does satisfy one (only) of the conditions of a Cp.

On the other hand, if we raise it as a two-way discussion, then at worst it can be the first of the three two-way round-robin discussions. And it is not at all likely to be necessary to have all three. Again, see my essay. Andrewa (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Certes said ‘’The RfC was inconclusive’’, meaning I think that the RfC did not decide whether NYC is the primary topic of ‘’New York’’. Well, yes… the RfC did not address this question at all, and neither does this RM. For clarity and as others (including yourself) have suggested, we need ask some two-way questions, partly to avoid suggested Condorcet paradoxes. So this RM just asks whether it would be better to have the DAB at the base name, rather than NYS as currently.

In view of the RfC and the practical issues this should not IMO be controversial, but in view of discussion here already it clearly is. Andrewa (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I've made anybody hungry with "Arby break", just short for "arbitrary break", not for "roast beef sandwich with cheddar cheese break". Thank you sincerely, PaleAqua, for giving your opinion against these page moves! How do all these reasons match up in your mind to the fact that 15–20 brand new links to the base-name, "New York", have to be checked every day, and about a third of those have to be repaired because editors meant to link to the city or to some other meaning for "New York"? Do you have a better solution to this problem than moving these pages?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the page linking to be a separate issue. No matter what page New York links to whether state; city or disambig page, incorrect links will continue to be added. PaleAqua (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is, if it's more common (worldwide) to refer to the city than the state as New York then there would be fewer mislinkings long term if the name New York pointed to the article on the city, and in either case there will be far fewer if it points to the DAB (as proposed). Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Been doing more looking into ngrams stats etc., thought this chart was interesting [5]. If I did it right it shows the total use of 4 common natural disambiguation forms compare to other uses of New York. Another interesting thing is switching the corpus from "English" to "American" and "British English". I probably should have added "New York, New York" but not sure how best to properly escape commas for ngrams. ( This is one of the reasons my personal views have shifted towards a disambiguation page at NY ) PaleAqua (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PaleAqua, for helping to see that the disambiguation page will be titled "New York". This will eliminate the need for manual checking and fixing thousands of misguided links each year, and it will ensure that the DPL bot will be able to automatically notify editors who place those misguided links. As a separate and related issue, the repair of these misguided links is presently a real headache that will disappear when these page moves are approved by the community.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC).

NYC as PT

From the discussion above: I am just increasingly convinced that NYC is the PT of NY. The rejection of the flawed essay notwithstanding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to get an answer to that at this stage, and so I'm increasingly believing that we should not even try to. As I've said before, if this were Andrewpedia, I'd just say have the NYC article at New York and get over it. I'm not sure what the perfect answer is or even whether there is one, or what the eventual answer will be.

But what I am sure of is that the current situation is terrible, both from a practical point of view and a policy point of view, and that this specific proposal (New York -> New York (state), New York (disambiguation) -> New York) if adopted will be a great improvement, again both practically and from the point of view of policies and guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to get our editors in the habit of typing/linking New York City when they mean the city. The official name does, in fact, include the word "City". bd2412 T 04:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Could editors be encouraged to use NYC when piping? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think breaking the habit "New York" = New York state, New York State, New York (state) or The Great State of New York or whatever is important. I think it should never have been at the base name. I think people instinctively know that NYS is not the NY primary topic, so they have just been doing whatever. I find myself equivocating on whether the NY base name should be a redirect to NYC, a CONCEPTDAB, or a simple DAB (preferences in that order), but the status quo I think is clearly broken. NYC at NY is a bad idea. Two question remain, each multi choice: what title for NYS, and what to do with NY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with much of this. It is obviously broken, and the system that has allowed it to be broken for so long in the face of this and in the face of many attempts to fix it is also broken.

The proposed move will break the NY = NYS habit, and this is important.

But I fear that we will make no progress towards fixing things by asking multi choice questions. We have tried that. There is no sense in trying it again, and no need to do so.

This proposed move may not be the perfect final answer, but if accepted it is progress. If it succeeds, then we should probably wait another year before reconsidering the PT question, but we should plan to do that.

On the other hand, if we allow the discussion to wander, we risk another fiasco.

It took twelve years to create this mess. If we can fix it in three we will have done well. And if this move succeeds, we will be more than halfway, and will have taken less than a year and a half to get there. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

NYS can't be moved off the basename without an answer to both questions. Move it where, and what then with the base name. I think New York (state) is the first answer, and momentum for most here is for moving New York (disambiguation), but I am wondering aloud whether it will be better all round to leave the disambiguation page along, and to redirect New York to New York City. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That, in essence, is the debate... summed up in one neat paragraph! Unfortunately resolving this issue is somewhat more tricky, and has eluded us for at least ten or fifteen years, since some early pioneering Wikipedian made the questionable decision to write an article about the state at New York. Incidentally, if I had a completely free hand, I would probably put the city at the base name. I think that actually would satisfy more policies than any other.... WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME for example, all suggest the city at New York, as a shorter version of the official title "City of New York". I fully realise that is highly unlikely to happen though, so almost anything would be an improvement for me, including having a dab page, or redirecting NY -> NYC...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not only can it be moved without consensus on its eventual destination, it must be. We can I believe get consensus that it is better to have the DAB, rather than NYS, at the base name. That is what this move is asking.

The current situation is ridiculous. But the system has some serious flaws which have prevented it being fixed for a long time.

Part of the solution is to take it one step at a time. Fix what can be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this page is round one of the tournament I half-seriously suggested above: NYC vs dab, the winner to play NYS in the final. That's probably an appropriate format, as I don't think anyone puts NYS between NYC and dab in their preference list; NYS is either first or last choice for the title New York, with NYC and dab adjacent. If true, that also prevents the Marquis de Condorcet from raising his ugly head. I'm with Andrew in that Certespedia would make NYC primary, but I'm happy to support the dab camp as a big improvement on the status quo which won't take readers to an unexpected article and lets User:DPL bot help us. We may want a RM in a year or two to make NYC primary, and I'm not yet sure whether I'd support or oppose it. Certes (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• When its complicated, scoring options, instead of binary choices, might be helpful:

Dealing with the NYS article now at NY:

• • NYS at NY? 3/10. It is not the primary topic, it is beaten by NYC, the mistaken arrangement may be responsible for the many linking errors made by ordinary editors.
  • NYS at New York (state)? 9/10 Consistent with
  • NYS at New York State? 7/10 Natural disambiguation, OK, clearly recognizable.
  • NYS at New York state? 7.5/10 As above, but avoid unnecessary capitalization.
  • NYS at New York, USA? 4/10 0.5/10 Logical, but weird looking, not consistent with other states. (note how by using independent scoring, dark horses can be introduced without derailing everything else) Modified score of this hastily thought up poor-scorer following others' comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with the then vacated NY title:

• • NY to redirect to NYC? 8/10 NYC is the primary topic, but NYC is better recognized, and is the commonname for introductory purposes. Articles should not link to the NY redirect, and this will assist fixing bad linking.
  • Move the dab page now at New York (disambiguation) to NY? 7/10 Good if NYC as PT of NY is disputed. Articles should not link to the NY dab page, and this will assist fixing bad linking.
  • Move NYC to NY? 5/10 Not unacceptable, but introduces potential for confusion
  • Create a CONCEPTDAB at NY? 6/10 Feels logical, though not fully explored and bd2412, patron of conceptdabs, doesn't like it. The primary topic is NYC, but not strictly the modern legally defined NYC.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Confused a little by the above, because when discussion in the 2016 RM is analyzed, it would seem that NY as a redirect to NYC would be more like 6/10, and the move of NY (d) to NY more like 8/10. While I personally like NYC as the PT, I'm not sure that it vies strongly enough with the state to take the title, nor even the primary redirect. What NYC does do is to vie strongly enough with the state to remove the state as PT. So I still think that if editors want to toss around whether or not NYC is the PT, then that is a question better left for sometime after this proposed move request is approved.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair points, and (if this were the real discussion), this illustrates how we can logically discuss different preferences, all while being explicit and obvious that we are discussing levels of passing scores. If my 8/10 is scored poorly by others, and my 6/10 high by others, the 6/10 will win and I will feel satisfied. You can criticise the highness of 8/10 without having to argue that the option is unacceptable, whereas in binary scoring, criticisms and responses tend hyperbolic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In many ways, what you say makes sense, Paine. The only caveat I would append to that, though, is that there were several oppose votes last time around which explictly rejected the idea of a dab page at NY over having either of them as primary topic, on the grounds that a dab page helps nobody. It's better to have one or other be primary with a simple hatnote to the other, so the argument goes, because then you're either 0 or 1 click away from where you want to be, whereas with a dab page, everybody is 1 click away, nobody lands where they wanted to. Now I don't agree with that, and our policies don't either (WP:TWODABS only applies when there is a primary topic), but it is an argument that's out there.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there were arguments before, and there's now one on this page too, that suggested that a DAB should never be at an ambiguous base name. But assuming that the closing instructions are followed, any !votes that rely on this logic will be discarded as blatantly contrary to policy. Andrewa (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've asked those who would oppose whether they believe that no dab should occupy a base name or that, whilst it is generally acceptable, New York is an exception. I still think an answer to that question could be helpful. Certes (talk)

This is an excellent question. It will be fascinating to see whether you get any answers... None so far, I gather? Andrewa (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A minor digression: 4/10 flatters New York, USA. It correctly redirects to the dab because NYS, NYC, New York, Iowa and others are all in USA. Certes (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also fair points, and I could well be persuaded to lower the score, if the option were to receive attention, though at a 4/10 fail, it is not a contender but a brainfart. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

New York, USA also violates the aptly named WP:NOTUSA guideline!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

And this is the perfect venue for such brainstorming... although I disagree that it constitutes individual brainstorming. Carry on! Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have created User:Certes/New York redirect as a draft proposal for making New York a primary redirect to the city article. I've almost convinced myself to support this argument! Certes (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

...it eases the technical process of improving misdirected wikilinks.

How does it do this? If presently 1/3 of the mislinks must be fixed because editors meant to link to the city, and if the city article is titled with the base name "New York" or that title redirects to the city article, then it seems to me that the manual work of fixing the base name links would about double. 2/3 is twice 1/3, and the 2/3 "New York" links that are meant for the state would have to be fixed – manually. That's about 3,500 – 5,000 mislinkings that would have to be fixed annually. How is the technical process of improving misdirected wikilinks improved? Has somebody created a bot that will fix them automatically?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I listed it eases the technical process of improving misdirected wikilinks as an advantage of creating a redirect from New York to New York City over the alternative of moving New York City to New York (leaving a redirect), not as an advantage over the status quo. If that's unclear then I should reword that paragraph.

Secondly, the 2/3 fall into two camps:

1. careful editors who find the article for the topic they're referring to (NYS) and put in a link to its current title per normal practice, not having read our megabytes of talk about linking to New York (state) as a temporary kludge;
2. careless editors who write "New York" in blind hope that it refers to NYS and currently get lucky.

Only the second group will be inconvenienced by this change. I don't know how large that group is, but I hope it's small. In fact it may well be smaller than the corresponding group of careless editors who write "New York" in blind hope that it refers to NYC and would benefit from the proposed change. Certes (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would point out that I am continuing to fix 15-20 links per day, and the majority of new links being made to New York still intend the state, even as a substantial portion intend the city. If the disambiguation page is moved here, these links will automatically be brought to the attention of the disambiguation project. Otherwise, someone is going to have to manually check every link, every time. I don't plan to keep doing this forever. bd2412 T 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again! No one should have to do that, and Wikipedia shouldn't have to run the risk that someone will fail to do it or do it badly. That's one reason why I'm still backing the dab despite writing, if not for the opponent, then for a different branch of the supporters' club. Certes (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Even if it turns out that NYC is the PT (as I also suspect), there are strong practical reasons for having the DAB at the base name for a while. Following the proposed move, the number of links being created pointing to New York will decrease, but it is impossible to tell what will happen to the ratio of ones intended for the city as opposed to the state. We need to clear the air after more than twelve damaging years of error.

It is even possible that, after a year of New York State not being at the base name, we would get a different result to an RfC on whether New York City is PT... either way. So while pointing New York to the article on NYC (whether as the article name or as a primary redirect) and holding an RfC now (which will probably end up the same way) are both ways forward, neither is the best way forward. Andrewa (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If the NY basename becomes the dab page, then future careless linking may be very different to current mislinking. I suspect that the vast majority of intentional links to NY are clueful, the editor has checked and knows the link goes to the state, and these editors will adjust when the state is where it should be. If it is subsequently observed that all links to the NY dab page intend NYC, then we can move the dab page back and redirect NY to NYC. Alternatively, we can go the other way, and if NY continues to receive huge numbers of incoming mislinks, it means NY should be the dab page. This is not a high stacks decision. More important is to get NYS off the basename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, while there may always be new editors who link to the base name NY, my guess is that many of the links are made by the same editors over and over again. Once they receive the DPL bot notice, and their future linking is correct, there will probably be fewer mislinkings over time. Editor edification is one reason why it would be good to title the dab page with the base name NY for now, and then revisit moving or redirecting NY to NYC down the road.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

My hunch is that editors who link to New York intending the state tend to be regular editors, because this arises in repeated contexts (for example, indicating that a bill in Congress was proposed by a Congressman or Senator from New York, or indicating some fact about the geography of a town in New York), which editors who link to New York intending the city tend to be more sporadic editors. bd2412 T 16:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That's my hunch too. It would make sense. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I haven't wanted to comment lately until I felt it was the correct time to do so. Now is the time, as the enlightenment of Zen has struck me as I held an entirely open, impartial mind toward all sides of the argument. And now I've found truth, at the very deepest level, at its core— Castncoot (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Truth be told, nothing should be done. From a purely encyclopedic standpoint (rather than a popular culture standpoint), the term "New York" applies most inclusively and comprehensively to the State. A reader searching for the City will need to search for "New York City". And immediately after the reader types the letter "N" in the search bar, guess what term appears near the top of the drop-down list? That's right – "New York City". And not too far lower comes "New York". A reader who is truly looking for New York City should reasonably be expected to click on that drop-down term right there. Castncoot (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Truth be told, the phrase Truth be told most often means In my opinion. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC).

Truth also be told, bd2412, you've done a valiant job which should be lauded for a long time hereafter, but – with all due respect, you should stop owning the cleaning up of mislinks, right now. Why? Because as you say, it's an endless job (do you remember the story of Atlas?), and it's not your job, nor was it ever your burden. It's the community's job, just as with any other term. So I hope you'll take up my offer and liberate yourself from a responsibility that was never yours in the first place. Castncoot (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO it's everyone's job. But I for one am grateful for the skill and energy BD2421 has applied to it without complaint, and hope we can reduce the need for it soonish. Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that bd2412 should not be considered a part of the Wikipedia community and that the mislinks should stop being fixed so that 10 years down the road, 10 more years of status quo, we shall have thousands and thousands of mislinks to fix – again. This is so astoundingly short-sighted that it's easy to believe that you don't even come close to having readers and the Wikipedia community at the forefront of your concerns. You have been shown time and time again that the consensus of this community is that titles like "New York" must be the titles of disambiguation pages, and that articles like the one on the state of New York should have disambiguated titles. You have also been shown clearly some very good reasons why the Wikipedia community has achieved these agreements. Why in the world would you fight against the community consensus of a policy, that of a guideline and also that of a 2016 RfC? If you don't agree with consensus, then what is your policy- or guideline-based reason?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The place to discuss any particular user's behaviour is of course on their own user talk page, in the first instance. Castncoot was only one of the users who overstepped the boundaries last time. I have given up trying to work out their motives. But I think we should make a concerted effort this time to defend each other. I have a thick skin, as does BD2412, but uncalled-for criticism such as the above will discourage other editors from participating too. We need to nip it in the bud. Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, motives aside, it appears that some editors will continue to, rather than strive for consensus, rely on the fact that all they have to achieve is a "no consensus" outcome. The very thought that a long-time experienced editor would do that rather than to work with the community and strive for consensus is shattering enough for us to find a way to achieve consensus peripheral to such efforts. There is really little sense in another RM until such as Castncoot is either swayed in their opinion or gets the eff outta Dodge. (That is, of course, unless we are confident that Castncoot pretty much stands alone in their "truths be told".)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the prospect of opposition should prevent or delay an RM. In fact, it is the very reason for the RM: if there were no dissenting voices, we'd just be bold and move the pages today. Let's see whether someone produces a compelling argument for retaining the status quo that we've all overlooked. If not then let's be confident that the closer will be convinced by the supporting evidence we've rehearsed above and not fooled by an argument such as "I don't like this, therefore there is no consensus". We don't need unanimous approval for this proposal, just a balance of evidence that's strongly in its favour. Certes (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree.

Confidence rather than complacency. We did have a balance of evidence that's strongly in its favour last time, IMO. To say the least. At the risk of repeating myself, there has never been a single shred of evidence or valid argument for keeping the NYS article where it is. Or at least not yet.

But we can expect more left-field protests. The suggestion above that the hard work of BD2412 is now unwelcome and should immediately cease [6] is probably just the start. Some of the posts last time seem to have been written using a parody generator.

But you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. They can't fool all of the people all of the time.

It has been a bizarre journey, and I'm guessing we will never know the motives for the games that have been played. And it doesn't really matter. We just need to fix what we can, and move on. Andrewa (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is funny that Castnoot should say that. As it happens, I have been on vacation for the past nine days. In that time, the number of direct links to "New York" increased from about 150 to 322. Of those 172 added links, a quick glance shows that a substantial number clearly intend the city, not the state. If no one fixed these, they remain errors. Is that the best outcome here? bd2412 T 02:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed funny... as in that tastes funny rather than that is amusing. Castncoot did say you've done a valiant job which should be lauded for a long time hereafter, but then said you should now stop. Funny indeed. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The requirement for this work is unwelcome and should stop. I'm grateful that the necessary work continues, but let's get on with the process of making it redundant. Certes (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's "get this show on the road"!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. But perhaps there are some who realise that the requirement for this work is an argument for moving the NYS article, which they don't want to take place (for whatever reason or perhaps none). If so, then that's a reason for them opposing and discouraging this work. So it's not entirely surprising. Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I read once that Soviet foreign policy could only be understood by those who knew the detailed work of Ivan Pavlov, on which it was based, and particularly the way in which some of his dogs were disabled by inconsistent input. I do not know whether any of that is true or not, and it is not mentioned on our article as far as I can see. But a similar tactic seems to me to be a possible explanation of some of the opposition last time. And perhaps it was effective. Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

BD2412, I'm sure you understood my point that as laudable as your work has been, you shouldn't be taking personal responsibility and ownership (and grief) for redirecting all mislinks, that it is the responsibility of the community as a whole, as with any other term - no need for any further clarification on that point. On to more important points - as I've stated above, anybody who even tries to search for "New York" in the search bar will encounter the drop-down menu displaying "New York City" immediately after typing "N" - so there's no excuse for them to get lost at that point if they're looking for the City. The issue is with newly created text links. I agree with your statement above that we need to get editors into the habit of stating and linking the term "New York City" if they intend to point to the City. Fortunately, it's technically not wrong per se even if they link to the State article, as the City is within the State, but there may be those links where the editors clearly are interested in arranging for the reader to get specifically to the City article - if that's the case, then we are reasonable to expect a certain level of knowledge, insight, and responsibility on the part of the editors to type in and link "New York City". So here's the interesting question that presents a new whole paradigm that precludes misguided talk of any type of move: Would it be possible for you to program in a "hard stop" question, such that if any editor tries to add the linked term "New York", a prompt would come up and present verbiage relatively similar to the current hatnote on the State article: This article directs to the state of New York. For the city, specify New York City.? Castncoot (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

See #Reply to r. Andrewa (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

A "NewYorkbot" which prompts the verbiage This link you posted on the (such and such) article directs to the state of New York. For the city, specify New York City to appear immediately on each editor's talk page as soon as they type in and save New York as a new entry would accomplish the solution needed here. Problem solved. Now someone just needs to design such a bot. By the way, were User:Oknazevad and User:Alanscottwalker (one editor each from the "Leave" and "Remain" camps previously) informed of this discussion? Castncoot (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It would solve part of the problem, while the proposed move would solve all of it, at far less trouble. Andrewa (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The proposed "NewYorkBot" sounds like an extension of the existing disambiguation notification bot, which this obviously does not solve the problem of disambiguation links appearing, since many novice editors just ignore the notice. bd2412 T 11:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. And I stand corrected, the proposed RM will not instantly solve all of the problems. But it will solve more of them than this "proposed" bot. Perhaps a better NewYorkBot would be one that numerically evaluates the rantiness of talk page posts, and autoreverts ones below a certain threshold of intelligibility. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This bot would have a different effect, bd2412 - first of all, it would be instant, as opposed to the dab function which takes days to materialize on the editor's talk page following an edit in question - and it would challenge the editor right then and there to choose between the State and the City immediately after they have placed the edit. I believe it would actually be enormously successful. Just out of curiosity I ask, do you have the capability of designing bots? Castncoot (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think that this "proposed" bot would be approved? What would be the justification for it running so much more often than DPL bot? I think we should also ask, have you read Wikipedia:Bots? Recommended if not, if you wish to make useful predictions about the use and usefulness of a bot. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note on this. This would not be a bot, but a change in the software, of the sort that is used to block inclusion of blacklisted external links. This exact functionality was requested many years ago with respect to commonly linked disambiguation pages like heavy metal, and the request was denied as technically unfeasable. I'll see if I can find that discussion - it was on whatever technical platform we used to use to file bug reports. Things may have changed with that, but I wouldn't count on it. bd2412 T 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, such a change to the MediaWiki software would be a far more practical way of achieving the instant result so confidently predicted by Castncoot, but again, I would be very surprised if it were to be approved. Feature requests are archived at Wikipedia:Feature request (archive), and these days Phabricator is used to track them, but this one might have been entered directly into Bugzilla if it's old enough. Andrewa (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If we want automated help, that is a strong argument for the New York page names to follow the established pattern of similar cases such as Washington. A software enhancement which helps with many consistently organised sets of articles is much more likely to gain approval than a custom exception which works only in the special case of New York. Certes (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, there's no Wiki software enhancement I'd like to see more than something to catch and alert on bad links before the edit is saved. bd2412 T 18:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong, it might get approval, particularly if it's more generally useful than the original NewYorkBot proposal. It's unlikely to be very far down that path by the time this proposed RM is closed, IMO, but wp:ball cuts both ways, and if someone wants to propose it, it might become relevant. How about it, Castncoot? Do you feel like a little homework, rather than just discussion? Andrewa (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As Certes pointed out, it would be much more likely to gain approval if it worked across the board and not just for New York. In other words, a (much needed) change in software that allowed a list of terms which would require a mandatory cross-check for disambiguation before the edit using any of those terms is saved. Perhaps getting any term included into that list would require admin approval. How do I proceed beyond that? My expertise in going beyond this stage for this type of thing is nil - but I'm happy to help work on it. Castncoot (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests for a start. We don't need to code it ourselves, in fact even if we did it would quite possibly take longer to get our code approved than it would take to get the change coded and implemented by an existing developer. Suggest you report back with your conclusions or more questions at User talk:Andrewa/Wikilink alert proposal (or any other appropriate forum you like). Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

And of course others are more than welcome to comment there. But this section is getting a bit too long, and straying off-topic IMO. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Probably not a deciding factor, but it does add a little more weight to New York (state) rather than New York State or New York state. Andrewa (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If you do find it, please add a link to it to User talk:Andrewa/Wikilink alert proposal. Andrewa (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding heads-ups for Oknazevad and Alanscottwalker, they have them now, and we should all be aware of the canvassing guidelines... which incidentally Castncoot has technically violated by selecting the participants on the basis of their expressed opinions. The guideline doesn't say select a balanced group. It says don't select at all. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, since I was summoned, I'll make my statement about this here. I think that there is no primary topic for the base name, and it should point to the disambiguation page. I think the state should be at New York (state), as it is unambiguous, while still allowing for the pipe trick to easily allow formatting of links without the disambiguator, which is needed in this case for various lists and other locations where including it would be inappropriate. It is also consistent with Washington (state). This ability to format links makes it preferable to "New York State", which would normally be preferred per WP:NATDIS, ("New York state" is not a case of avoiding unnecessary capitalization; the capital is standard usage while the lowercase is generally unused, but again, the parenthetical is preferable here). I oppose pointing the base name at the city, because that would constitute designating that as the primary topic, for which there is no agreement among the sources or our editors. Plus, the next step from there would be to move the city article to the base name, which is completely unacceptable to me; the current title of the city article is the best possible title as it is unambiguous and actually used in everyday writing. oknazevad (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That end result is exactly what this RM should produce immediately. The question of whether there is a PT and what it is (it might not just be the five burroughs, for example) will probably arise later, and will (hopefully) be decided by consensus then.

Disagree that the next step from there would be to move the city article to the base name. I have yet to see a single editor advocate this, have I missed it? Several others have opposed it, but it seems to be worse than a dead duck, at the risk of stretching that analogy, it isn't even an egg waiting to hatch, it's a non-egg surrounded by shotguns just waiting for it to quack. (;->

I like the point about the pipe trick. Andrewa (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

When people say just "New York", this almost always means NYC, except when context indicates otherwise ("the New Jersey – New York border"). I'm sure that someone from Buffalo would be far more likely than not to disagree with that conjecture. Castncoot (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and in parts of Canada when they say Sydney they mean Sydney, Nova Scotia. So? Andrewa (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a small town and a state whose name is used by every town in that state, even one that is far away from NYC. Not a valid comparison. oknazevad (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly not the best example I agree, but the point is just that Buffalo, New York is not the world, and I think it makes that point. Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is that when someone writes "Buffalo, New York", or any subdivision written with the comma convention (which is practically all of them), the "New York" refers to the state, not the city, and that's a very widespread usage of the undisambiguated term. It may be relatively obvious from the context, but it speaks to the idea that one cannot assume that "New York" means the city as primary topic. It's a big part of the reason I don't think there is a primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a point well made, and one I had not thought of in those terms. Wikipedia often uses , New York as a disambiguator, and in that context it's always the state, and we're not the only ones who do this by any means. But I say again, this RM takes (and should take) no stand on whether or not NYC is the PT. That may be raised later and probably will be. See User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York simplified#Dealing with a possible Condorcet for just one reason it's important to keep this RM focussed. Andrewa (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is that for the 7 million residents of Upstate New York (not an unsubstantial number), "New York" is the state that these inhabitants live and breathe in every day. Castncoot (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is, just as for the 7 million residents of Washington state, they live and breathe that state, while the residents of DC live and breathe Washington as a city. The fact that a topic is highly primary locally does not imply it is globally primary.....  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

By my arithmetic, 7 million is less than 1% of the number of English speakers worldwide (and still under 2% if you count only native speakers, but en.wikipedia exists for all English speakers). Andrewa (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Washington" and "New York" are apples and oranges (or maybe apples and other apples - being perhaps the two biggest apple-producing U.S. states). There are several other common disambiguators for "Washington", while "New York" refers almost exclusively either to the U.S. state or to the City. Also, Washington, D.C. is not a part of Washington State, while NYC (pop 8.6 million) is a part and parcel of NYS (pop 20 million, including NYC's 8.6M). Castncoot (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There are differences and similarities, as in any such comparison, but what precedents we do have all support New York (state), imperfect as they may be.

It's also good I think to remind ourselves that NYS is not the primary topic of New York in any case. That has been decided. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

An irrelevant point because the City article to tethered to the name New York City, and I don't believe anybody foresees that changing, perhaps ever. Castncoot (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The primary topic of New York (or lack of one) is very relevant to deciding which page should have the title New York. Everyone agrees on the primary topic of New York City, and that the city article will retain that title whatever the outcome of the RM. Certes (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm a bit surprised it needs to be said, but it obviously does, and well said. Andrewa (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, if Certes is acknowledging that New York City will always retain the title "New York City", then there's nothing left to disambiguate that would require moving the whole State page. Now it just becomes a matter of mislinks with regards to new edits referencing the term "New York". Castncoot (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

New York City will always retain the title "New York City", then there's nothing left to disambiguate That is simply not true. The WP:Disambiguation guideline applies to terms that are typically used to refer to the topic even if they are not the article's title. Diego (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Our aim is to help the reader and editor by providing the best WP:destination for New York. Common sense, WP:ATDIS and WP:Disambiguation all suggest that, when there is no primary topic, we can't guess the reader's intended destination and should invite them to select their preferred option. The disambiguation page is merely a means to that end, not an ambition in its own right. As a bonus it allows an existing bot, and possibly a future software enhancement, to prompt editors to fix any misdirected wikilinks. Certes (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Another precedent

This RM close is interesting. There was no consensus as to whether there was a PT or what it was if so, but there was consensus that the existing article was not the PT.

Sound familiar?

The result was to move the DAB to the base name. Sounds sensible to me. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• You are citing yourself? I disagree with your !vote there. I think the functional group is primary because all other uses derive from it. I think NYC is the primary topic because all other uses, including the state name, derived from the city name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And yet Boston, Lincolnshire is not the primary topic of Boston. Name origins/first claimants have no bearing on primary topic, per longstanding consensus. oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as Boston, Lincolnshire has been well and truly overshadowed by Boston in international contexts. Your second sentence, I strongly dispute. Origins, first use, and subsequent derivations, are important factors in making the decision. A contentious case, but one where the argument of original use and derived uses won the day is avatar. "No bearing" is patently wrong. No other "New York" has overshadowed New York. NB. I am happy for the decision to be postponed, with the DAB page at the basename, as it will enable collection of unbiased data on what normal editors think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Avatar is a very interesting case, but I'm not yet sure whether or not it is relevant. See Talk:Avatar#Requested move 2013 which is very long and involved and which seems to have been at least the fourth RM raised for this particular page but the others are probably not relevant here, and Talk:Avatar#Non-admin closure of above RM which refers to other discussions which I have not yet located. Any help locating them appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree that Name origins/first claimants have no bearing on primary topic. But perhaps we need to state it a bit more carefully, and I'm not sure how. The two... name origin and primary topic... are related, and dogmatic statements however correct seem to get negative reactions in the post-modern world. Which makes arguing logically rather than rhetorically a bit tricky. (Logic is the science of correct reasoning. Rhetoric is the science of persuasive reasoning. The Greeks of the classical period regarded both as equally admirable.) Andrewa (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Replying to SmokeyJoe 01:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC) but not wanting to use mixed indents as they have:

No, I am not citing myself and rather resent the implication that I might be.

There are two issues here and it's important to distinguish them. The interesting and important one is that the decision was to move the DAB to the base name based on there being consensus that the existing article was not the PT, despite there being no consensus on whether or not there is a PT. The proposal was to move the DAB and the non-PT topic only. And isn't that exactly the case we are likely to have here in the case of New York?

Yes, I did express a view in that RM in support of a move. And I took no stand there on whether or not there is a PT (I said probably there wasn't, but I didn't base my !vote on that). But that is not what I am citing. What I am citing is that the closer accepted the arguments for the move (including mine of course) as valid. Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The close is a reflection of the discussion, and in the discussion of six people, you were one of only three to speak to the question of primary topic of vinyl. One of those three asserted that it was "unclear". The other was the double-!voting IP. The nominator merely implied. Your input was critical to the closer being able to assert "consensus that the vinyl group is not the primary topic". As you were a critical contributor the result, in my books, you are definitely self-citing in this case. And it is important, because RM regulars should remain well aware that the gene pool of RM regulars is quite small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Just curious... at WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move it is stated: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." So, curious as to what is deemed "The nominator merely implied," especially the "merely"?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the nominators rationale clearly means that he argues the vinyl group is not the PT. (When are we going to do this RM?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, they don't link to the PT rule (may not even have known it exists) but provide a rationale on practical grounds that demonstrates rather well why we have the rule we do. And this was upheld and (the whole point is) the page was moved without any agreement on whether or not there is a PT by people who know the rule very well. If this is to be questioned, it should go to MR. Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, and just to join the fireside chat while we wait for the NY RM to start, I probably agree with SmokeyJoe, I'm afraid - I think the previous arrangement was better. Vinyl clearly means the chemical group, that's what it is... the other uses are simply derived from or special cases of that. Records are called vinyl because they're made of vinyl, which is a rather direct derivation. But anyway.... I didn't vote in the discussion so my view is by-the-by! It's not the same as NY because there's no interpretation which says that NY city is somehow derived from or a special case of NY state, rather the two entities are separate and NYC dominates rather clearly in most categories by which one might assess primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That still seems to miss the point completely, IMO. I'm not suggesting there is anything at all to be learned from this case on whether or not there is a PT for NY. There may be or not. I don't care. What interests me is the question: Having assessed that there is consensus to move an article away from the base name but no consensus as to what should be at the base name instead, what do you do? And the decision here was to move the DAB to the base name. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well it probably depends on the circumstances. If there's a consensus that the page should be moved, then presumably most are in agreement that the present page is not the PTOPIC. Then if it's a split between those who think some other page is the PTOPIC and those who think there simply is no PTOPIC, then it's a tricky one for the closer. Would we have a dab page by default? I'd say not necessarily. I'm not sure either PTOPIC or dab page is ever the default option, where people can't agree. Probably has to come down to a simple headcount or an executive decision (!SuperVote) by the closer.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe asked (When are we going to do this RM?)... I would be quite happy to propose this newish draft of mine immediately, it was just a braindump but turned out rather well I think. But JFG wants a longer version, see User talk:JFG#My new draft re new york New York new York New york new YORK... and discuss there (as bd2412 also has) or at User talk:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017. Andrewa (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems good. Would it be outlandish to ask for "New York → New York (disambiguation)"? To symbolise its temporaneousness. With New York (disambiguation) → New York I would feel the urge to start turning it into a CONCEPTDAB. I would swap 1 & 2. I would swap the dot point order currently in 1. But whatever. Largely it is a question of style, and committee style rarely is better than the style of any single individual with any sense of style. --SmokeyJoe (talk)

I think that's a bad idea. Mostly because I don't think having the disambiguation page at the base name should be temporary. Largely because of the same reason I support moving the state article to a dosambiguated name: there is no clear primary topic. The evidence collected thus far shows that. Just because the state isn't the primary topic doesn't mean the city clearly is. oknazevad (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a fair position. I think NYC is the PT of NYC, but it is not a slam dunk. I don't think the evidence is clear. Many editors link to NY for the state because that is where the state is. I have the more general question, why should disambiguation pages ever be at base names, why not always have them all suffixed "(disambiguation)"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. But not sure where to best discuss the question... it has been raised before, by me I think! Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We cannot assume the outcome of an RM to test this and must not, either way. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that getting the balance right on this very question is the most important single issue in framing this RM. Raised at User talk:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017#Focus, balance and PT, or should we start a section on it here? Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, it is only a side discussion of trifling pedantry here. I mean only to poke your ribs, not chastise. Yes, yours in an interesting comparison. I am recently sensitised to the question following a difficult analysis at today at DRV, where I found that at the FfD a closer cited as precedent, "established precedent" even, his own previous close. It made me choke. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It may be pedantry to some but exactly this sort of flawed logic helped to derail the discussion and perhaps then the decision last time in my opinion. Am I really a critical contributor the result? If you remove my !vote, would the result then be in doubt? Or would it just be a bit more difficult to assess? I actually thought of closing this one myself, and then thought "No, better to have someone uninvolved in NY do it, as it is relevant". Obviously I blundered in this in your view... but I think it's still relevant despite this blunder. Andrewa (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "flawed logic" you refer to. And less sure what blunder you refer to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief and gentle but I'm finding it very difficult to be either... You were appearing to reject the precedent, on several dubious grounds IMO. My input to a discussion does not disqualify me from raising a point that would be valid if raised by another user. There are times when a user must be uninvolved but this is not one of them. My involvement is no secret (I even linked to the discussion) and pointing it out is valid if part of a logical argument. But you left out several critical steps of this argument. You have implied that the outcome might have been assessed differently without my input... Really? That is at least questionable IMO, and your logic depends on it. Nor does the fact that two !votes were from IPs disqualify one of the two. If you suspect sockpuppetry, then there are channels for raising this and you should do so rather than making an out-of-process allegation that is an AGF violation and has now been explicitly denied. Consensus is a very subtle concept, and if we treat it lightly (in this case by groundlessly rejecting a valid consensus decision) then we risk allowing discussions to degenerate and polarise to the point that one side can then play for "no consensus" and win, which undermines wp:5P4... and does that sound familiar?

Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted in another room by some people who keep fighting. No, I don't reject the precedent, I just think that when citing the precedent, you should declare that you were involved in establishing it. I think you take me too seriously. I do try to do the indenting correctly, but it is so hard on a phone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

OHO - tell me more. What is so hard on a phone? Are our indenting conventions outdated and need updating so as to accommodate mobile users? Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Counting colons, when there are more than four or five, and remembering how many colons when the preceding post is more than three lines, is hard. What is "OHO"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

OHO again... And OHO (pronounced oh ho) means I have just learned something important. Raised at Help talk:Using talk pages#Mobile users, which may not be the best place but better than here. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, OHO is a disambiguation page. 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

wikt:oho is more relevant... I guess I should not shout it for emphasis, that makes it look like a TLA. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the rest of this, just BTW! Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23#File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png to which you linked and it's long and starts out with a long and (my first thoughts having not looked at previous discussions) appalling rationale... individual discussions can't amount to much in the way of community consensus... they can and do, there are channels for questioning and rediscussing every decision but dismissal such as this is not one of them... replaceable with alternatives, such as text... do we really need to discuss why an image is not replaceable with text in every deletion discussion and review involving an image? The mind boggles.

I guess it just went predictably downhill from there. Do you want me to look further? Andrewa (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No. You may already understand that it boggled my mind and may have affected me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Fireside chats

Surely you can find something to do outside. Go play with a ball.

Are we warm? Maybe we should be doing something?

Are we waiting to be put to work

Looks pleasant, but I don't think most of us are here yet.

Fireplace seems cold, converstion seems contrived, ambience is cold, I feel cold

Franklin's seems rather grim

Isn't it nice just being together?

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes it is technically wrong

Castncoot says above I agree with your statement above that we need to get editors into the habit of stating and linking the term "New York City" if they intend to point to the City. Fortunately, it's technically not wrong per se even if they link to the State article, as the City is within the State... [7]

I criticised this above, but I let it off far too lightly in hindsight. Sometimes it is wrong.

There are three possible scenarios (assuming the intended sense is itself true):

• The statement may still be true, such as McGoo was born in New York when the intended meaning is he was born in the city. It's still not the intended meaning, but it's not a false statement.
• The statement may be false, such as In the 2010 census, the population of New York was 8,175,133.
• The statement may be nonsensical, such as New York is not the capital of the State of New York.

All of them are possible, all are unfortunate, in that the writer's intent is not expressed, and the second and third are just plain wrong. Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Albany, and not New York City (and not New York State, for that matter), Andrewa, is the capital of the State of New York. Now do you understand why it is nonsensical to have people without robust New York topic experience adjudicating this issue and telling people who have robust New York topic experience what to do? Would you want a taxicab driver removing your gallbladder? Castncoot (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You seem to have missed the not in that statement.

The statement New York City is not the capital of the State of New York is true. Agreed? The statement New York State is not the capital of the State of New York is nonsensical. Agreed?

Sorry I have to insert my answers as such - there's no other way in this complex thread to point this out otherwise. I did not miss the not in the statement. The point is precisely that saying that New York is not the capital of the State of New York is absolutely technically correct (whether "New York" is intended to reference the State or the City). But you've insisted that the second and third are just plain wrong. Therefore, your statement that the third statement above is "wrong" is technically incorrect. Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No apology necessary, this is how the indenting convention is supposed to work.

I'm glad you did not miss the not, but then why point out that [Albany, New York|Albany]], and not New York City? I think we all know that. That was the whole point of the example. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Now do you understand why it is nonsensical for a general encyclopedia to ignore the views and needs of the 99%+ of English speakers without this robust New York topic experience? Would you ask a conference of gallbladder specialists to design the fire alarm system in your high-rise apartment?

Andrewa, the only articles in which you would ever see the statement In the 2010 census, the population of New York was 8,175,133 would be the New York City and maybe the New York State articles, and in neither of those articles would the term "New York" be wikilinked in a sentence as such. Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, I spoke too soon... more pointless over-indentation. And another baseless and ridiculous over-generalisation. An article on drug control measures, for example, might compare those of New York (city) to another city, and in doing so quote the populations of both cities. There are many other possible examples. For a more concrete example, our article on Brooklyn is neither the New York City or the New York State article, but quotes the population of NYC. So you're going to need to widen the scope of your maybe a bit... to include all of these articles at least, and I predict some others... but why do your homework for you? Want another try at it? Duck season... Andrewa (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your statement ..it's technically not wrong... is quite simply a false generalisation. The second case is the important one. The mislinking can render an otherwise true statement false, contrary to your assumption.

In 99% or more of the cases, it's technically not wrong will turn out to be technically correct. At least 99% is a pretty good statistic, if you ask me. Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Any errors are worth avoiding. Even if the 99% is accurate... and I'm skeptical. Evidence? Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I just included the third for completeness. But it turns out to demonstrate something interesting as well. Andrewa (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me rephrase Andrewa's third example, with apologies to those for whom it was already crystal clear. A careless editor may write New York is not the capital of the State of New York. That editor intends to inform us that "New York City is not the capital (it's Albany)" and has assumed, not unreasonably. that New York links to the city. However, because New York actually links to the state, the editor is accidentally claiming that "the State of New York is not the capital", which is nonsensical. If New York led to a dab then such errors would be easier to find and fix. In fact, using a dab might even allow future software to prevent such errors altogether. Certes (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Certes, in what article are you ever going to see that statement written and wikilinked as such? None. I rest my case.

Exactly. Thank you.

But I think the second example is the more important. Does it need similar clarification? And doesn't it completely destroy the claim that ..it's technically not wrong... whenever an editor links to the article on New York State, wishing to link to New York City?

As I've stated shortly above, Andrewa, the only articles in which you would ever see the statement In the 2010 census, the population of New York was 8,175,133 would be the New York City and maybe the New York State articles, and in neither of those would the term be New York wikilinked in a sentence as such. Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And as I demonstrated above, you're mistaken in this belief. Andrewa (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's true that ..it's technically not wrong... in some cases. But the assumption that this applies to all cases is unfounded and, as it turns out, false. Andrewa (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As I've states shortly above, Andrewa, in 99% or more of the cases, it's technically not wrong will turn out to be technically correct. At least 99% is a pretty good statistic, if you ask me. Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You can state your willingness to make baseless guesses and call them statistics, and to accept and encourage avoidable errors, all you like. Hopefully most Wikipedians will prefer to make decisions based on facts, and to avoid error. Andrewa (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fascinated that anyone would fail to understand this post or be convinced by it. As I thought about it and this obvious rebuttal to the statement ...it's technically not wrong... I was astonished that I had not raised it before. The assumption that all mislinkings are of the first form, that of McGoo was born in New York, is insidious, but once I realised that it was false, the true position was I thought plainly obvious.

In the case of Castncoot to whom the post was addressed, it appears that they just didn't read it. They seem to think that I thought that New York (city) was the capital of New York (state). The mind boggles. But I guess that goes along with the theory that it is nonsensical to have people without robust New York topic experience adjudicating this issue and telling people who have robust New York topic experience what to do. In other words, "You're all ignorant, end of story". Am I being unfair?

But in case anyone is still in any doubt, some more examples of statements that would be true if linked to New York City, but the mislinking of New York to the state renders them false.

• The head of the police of New York is James P. O'Neill.
• 90% of the water supply of New York comes through the Kensico Reservoir.

Do you see the pattern? Is there anyone who imagines that there will be any difficulty in finding others? Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you've had to propose theoretical examples (or perhaps cherry pick them if they actually exist) where this might occur. But as I've said a couple of times shortly above, that 99% or more of the time, if the link goes to the State, it will not be technically incorrect. And that's a pretty good record. Are you telling me that the rest of Wikipedia is (100%) perfect? Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I routinely see links that are technically wrong. I see text specifying that a subject lives in "the City of New York" or that a company does business in "cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles", or that a concert tour included stops in Buffalo and New York. bd2412 T 03:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

But the vast majority of the links I see and that you are likely to see are technically correct. Just like the third example which you've just quoted above (Buffalo and New York) is not technically incorrect. Castncoot (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not just about being technically correct. It's about being useful and helpful. In the text "Brooklyn is in New York", we could redirect New York to United States or the universe and still be technically correct. But no one in their right mind would do that, because the intended target here is clearly New York City. Diverting the link to a larger entity, even the state which includes NYC, is neither useful nor helpful. Certes (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's just not true, Certes. The intended target here is debatable, and not clearly the City. For example, the postal address would be "Brooklyn, NY", meaning the State. But then (again), without robust New York topic experience, one would not be aware of that fact. New York topic experience is absolutely critical here, and without at least 50 edits on each of the City and State articles, one really should not be claiming the pretense of expertise. Just like I shouldn't be enlightening Andrewa whether residents of Sydney's suburbs or farther out in New South Wales should be called Sydneysiders. Are they, by the way? Castncoot (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear exactly what you claim is not true, but I agree with most of this.

To reject the expertise of those with robust New York topic experience would be just as stupid as to reject the views of those without it. This is a collaboration. The information provided by the seasoned contributors is indeed absolutely critical here, but it is not the whole story. The perspective provided by the wider community of English speakers is also absolutely critical. We cannot expect a good result without both considering and respecting both. Andrewa (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad you agree on that point. Castncoot (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a very important point indeed. But do you see how it cuts both ways? Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, we could do without DABs completely if we just redirected every Wikilink to Universe. We could do that in software. Then they'd all be technically correct. That's a bit out of left field, and the term technically correct appears to be rather subjective, so I think we need two new technical terms here. A Wikilink is Andrewa correct if its destination is what the author intended, and if the author knew what they were talking about. A Wikilink is Castncoot correct if it is either Andrewa correct or its destination is an article on a superset of a link that is Andrewa correct. For example, the statement The head of the police of New York State is James P. O'Neill is Castncoot correct. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what Castncoot correct is. That is a theoretical example you've proposed, or a rare technical mislink which needs correction if it exists (and if you found it to exist, you hopefully corrected it immediately), just like other technical errors in Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot correct is whatever you, Castncoot, mean by technically correct, which is a problematical term as it's not clear what you mean by it. And it seems to be clarifying the issue here a great deal. You are unable to say whether or not my examples are technically correct in your opinion... that is, using my terminology, whether or not they are Castncoot correct. This indicates to me that you are not yourself sure what you mean by technically correct. If you were sure, then hypothetical, "cherry-picked", contrived or not, you would have no problem in deciding. Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who started this section? Castncoot (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I thought and still think it's an important subtopic. Andrewa (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply to r

I think it would be good for everyone to quietly consider the best way to deal with posts such as this. Compare it to User:Andrewa/How not to rant#How to rant and I think you'll recognise a lot of the techniques used, not surprisingly as that essay was largely (but not entirely) inspired by the last New York RM discussion. So we can expect more of the same, and not just from Castncoot. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The question to ask is: "how does this comment support or oppose the proposal?". Is it a counter-proposal that we request an amendment to the Wikimedia software to hard-code special treatment for New York, rather than using the existing dab features? If so, then that suggestion should be assessed on its merits as an alternative way forward. Sounds like a snowball Oppose to me. Certes (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That's critiquing this post I think. This proposed bot is neither a serious proposal nor a serious argument IMO. But none of the oppose arguments have had any more merit than it has, IMO, and yet they have been successful. A puzzle indeed. Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I was too hasty with neither a serious proposal, see User talk:Andrewa/Wikilink alert proposal. It is quite possible that a serious proposal will come out of it (although not a bot). Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I will just pick up one logical problem. Fortunately, it's technically not wrong per se even if they link to the State article, as the City is within the State... False. NYC is not contained within NYS. So even if Castncoot's proposed HLJC (which is what this is) had been accepted (it wasn't, but they obviously haven't given up on it!), it's not applicable here anyway. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Another logical problem is New York has an area of 468 sq mi. That's a reasonable statement to write but it's false: the linked article is, surprisingly, about a much larger area. See also population figures, KRAP broadcasts to the whole of New York, etc. Certes (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. But again, will logic now prevail against such patent nonsense? The record is not good. Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect facts here. New York City, meaning the political division consisting of five boroughs, which is how the term is understood in American English, is entirely within New York State. Again, this seems to come down to the difference in ENGVAR usage I have mentioned in prior discussions, wherein American English pays more heed to political boundaries when describing something as "in" a municipality, and tends toward using terms like "X area" when describing nearby locations. So the statement that "the City is within the State" is correct. oknazevad (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected, the current NYC article is scoped to the five burroughs. But the point regarding the HLJC stands. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad and Andrewa: I would add that the city preceded the state by well over a hundred years. A person born in "New York City" in 1665 could have lived there until he was 108, without ever being in the state of New York, because the state did not exist. This crops up as an issue from time to time with links in biographies of people born or living in New York City prior to the American Revolution. bd2412 T 13:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

True. Instead they would have lived in the Province of New York, the state's colonial predecessor. oknazevad (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There was even a brief period of dispute where both the Province of New York and the Colony of Connecticut claimed parts of what is now New York City. The Province of New York itself originally included all of New Jersey, and claimed what is now Vermont and Northern Maine. bd2412 T 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! That then is another argument for there being no primary topic for New York, not just for the State not being primary. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa and Oknazevad: I've refactored this subsection, as some replies had become detached from their parent comment. This required duplicating my signature and AndrewA's where we each made two points in a single edit. Please revert if I've been too bold. Certes (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

OK by me. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If New York City is removed from the equation, then is New York State the Primary Topic for the base name New York?

1) Clearly, yes. The previous RfC regarding whether the State was the primary topic didn't take NYC, which will always be tethered to New York City, out of the equation and therefore carries no relevance in this discussion of a theoretical page move for New York. Castncoot (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is no different than saying that if heavy metals did not exist, then heavy metal music would be the clear primary topic of the term, heavy metal. Probably true, but the discussion comes out of the fact that these alternative do exist. bd2412 T 02:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that a topic has other names does not prevent it from being considered when determining primary topic. The article about the U.S. capital is named Washington, D.C. but that topic was still taken into consideration when (quite correctly) making Washington a dab rather than the title of (or a primary redirect to) Washington (state). This convention is explained at WP:ATDAB with another example: Lift is a dab, even though the article on one of its main topics is called Elevator. Certes (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, as I mentioned elsewhere (or rather apples and other apples, as both are major apple-producing U.S. states). Unlike "New York", the term "Washington" has a number of other major ambiguous connotations, not the least of which is George Washington, the first U.S. president, after whom the city of Washington, D.C. was named. For New York, it's just the State and City by a wide margin over other, far less significant terms, and if the City is "taken" by New York City, then that clearly leaves the State standing alone to claim the base name "New York". The terms "lift" and "heavy metal" similarly have other major connotations, similar to "Washington". Castncoot (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of other apples to compare with the Big Apple:

• Warrap, disambiguating Warrap (state) from Warrap, South Sudan
• Paraná, disambiguating Paraná (state) from Paraná, Entre Ríos and minor uses

They're not just WP:OTHERSTUFF; they illustrate a policy-based argument which stands on its own merits. Certes (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Certes, let's please appeal to some common sense. None of these pages have readership or common familiarity anywhere near NYS/NYC. Castncoot (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The scale is larger, but the relationship is the same. bd2412 T 22:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Cassie? are you seriously considering blanking the NYC page? Your past attempts to ungarner a consensus to move these pages have been successful; however, I don't think you'll get away with that. :>)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course I wouldn't. But you might get away with that. ;) Castncoot (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• So really, the only issue left is new mislinks, which would be best served being addressed by a far better, more selectively targeted and hopefully more intelligent solution than throwing the baby out with the bath water, which nobody should want to do. Castncoot (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The "only issue left" on this page is why you will not give a policy- or guideline-based argument against these page moves. Your argument above does not begin to address the policy, guideline and RfC community consensus that supports these renames. And we don't want to throw you out, Cass, we really just want to change the dirty bath water.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I have to admit that was a brilliant zinger on your part, Paine - not for its veracity but certainly for its creativity! Castncoot (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
      • You are too kind, Cass! Yet you still provide no consensus-based rebuttal to the wide community consensus that will get these pages moved soon. If you are waiting for this request to go live to do so, then we'll see you there.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Suzie: "I don't know which is weirder, the fact that you are fighting a stuffed tiger, or the fact that you appear to be losing." Calvin: "I'm not losing, Hobbes cheats! Ow!" I don't really know or care who is winning this one. It's all based on a contrafactual.

That's of course unless we adopt the President's solution from Fail Safe. I'm not even tempted. Yet. But as I've said before, it might be the only long-term solution. Can we can find someone to serve as a sort of reverse Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, and exceed his authority a little to order it done? Even the immense power of Wikipedia might be tested there, but we don't really know until we try.

I'm not convinced that even this desperate action would make NYS the PT in the short term. But people's memories probably have a shorter half-life than the resulting soft blue glow at night, so there's a long term chance. Andrewa (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• To answer the question in the header, having the city article already at a naturally disambiguated title in no way removes it from the discussion about whether or not the undisambiguated title should continue to be used for, or even point to, the article on the state. Just as possibly adding a parenthetical to the state article doesn't automatically mean the undisambiguated title should be repointed to the city article. Both rest on assumptions about what is a pretty ambiguous title, as has been reinforced in multiple prior discussions, including right on this page. oknazevad (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Very well put. But I suspect the question was intended to be rhetorical in any case. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Mexico City

Power~enwiki said above I'm not sure I understand the motivation. Is it due to confusion with New York City? There would be no reason to move Mexico to a disambiguation page as a result of confusion with Mexico City. [8]

If:

• Mexico City were commonly known worldwide as Mexico (it's not, but New York City is often just called New York) and
• Wikipedians regularly wikilinked to Mexico meaning Mexico City (I don't think they do, do you? But Wikipedians regularly make that mistake with respect to New York) and
• Mexico City were far better known worldwide and more culturally significant then the country of Mexico (which of course it's not, that's very far-fetched, but we have consensus that something similar is the case with respect to New York)

then yes, I would support a move of the article on Mexico away from the base name.

Not you?

It's a very far-fetched scenario with respect to Mexico/Mexico City. But it's exactly what has happened with New York. Amazingly. Andrewa (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's also a State of Mexico, which used to contain the city before the latter became a distinct federal entity. Three levels with the same name! But unlike New York, one of them is far and away the primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. New York (city) is arguably the primary topic, while Mexico (country) is unarguably the primary topic. No comparison. So the country stays at Mexico, while New York becomes a DAB. Andrewa (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Not to meander or anything... "arguably" being the key concept, especially since according to bd2412, fully 2/3 of the newly-made links to NY don't have to be fixed, and only 1/3 of them need to be changed to NYC. So if this PT discussion does ever launch, it should be just as interesting as are this and past requested moves of these pages.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

We did politely argue the case for NYC being primary in the RFC and reached no consensus. (That's not surprising; I can't even reach a consensus on that question by myself.) I hope that experience with NY as a dab will inform any future discussion. As for 2/3 of links being to NY state, I wonder how many of these are from the Doe moved to Anytown, New York formula, where the article isn't even tangentially about the state and I suspect few readers will ever click that link. Certes (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"I can't even reach a consensus on that question". This is why "consensus" is a strange word, not susceptible to voting, nebulous, can't be pre-defined but we know it when we see it. Consensus involves negotiating the question, adding caveats, etc. I think there is consensus here that "NYC might be the PT of NY". I agree that "NY as a dab will inform any future discussion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

See wp:creed#consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Seen it. Well worth reading, like all of your subpages. Any more particular comment? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sometimes, it's not easy to identify a consensus – heaven knows, as a page mover I've had problems with the concept – especially when one considers that Wikipedia's definition of consensus is very different from the "consensus" you linked in your creed. It is my sincerest hope that a decisive agreement with the policy, the guideline and the RfC community consensus is forthcoming when we get this able effort "moving".  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you think our project page Wikipedia:Consensus differs from our article consensus decision-making? I don't think it's supposed to! If others feel similarly, maybe that's part of our problem. But I've seen the Uniting Church in Australia#Decision making procedure in practice on many occasions, and it, our article, our project page and our practice at its best seem entirely consistent to me.

But there is one important and relevant way in which our current practice does depart from that of the UCA. Working openly to achieve a no consensus result would be severely frowned upon, and to be seen to celebrate achieving a victory in this way would be simply unthinkable. It amounts to deliberately frustrating the process. In theory, I think Wikipedia is the same, but not in practice as we have seen. Andrewa (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one, Andrewa. Yes, Wikipedia's very viable and agreed upon definition of consensus is usually not in conflict with the standard definition of consensus. I've been in a few discussions when the admin or other closer had a real tough time determining consensus, and yet under the policy, they were still able to do so even when by the standard definition there was no consensus. Those are rare occurences, to be sure, so rare that I cannot find one; however, I do remember being involved in a few of them. In any case, I was just pointing out why it's so important to have experienced closers, admins or otherwise, when those rare discussions do happen. This particular situation seems to me to be an open-and-shut case, which is why the past thirteen years of failure to comply with community consensus is so perplexing to me.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

On reflection there are some significant differences between the two practical models (Uniting Church - UCA to its friends - and Wikipedia) with which I am familiar, and they all concern closing. In Wikipedia there is (in theory) no head count. In the UCA, the matter is still decided in favour of the majority, it's just that we add an extra step between conventional discussion and the vote. In Wikipedia the closer rejects !votes that are in flagrant violation of logic or policy, including those that offer no rationale at all, while in the UCA all votes are still counted. And in Wikipedia there are processes to appeal the close (such as MR), while it's hard to see how there any corresponding opportunity could be made part of the UCA model, and it's not there currently.

And it's interesting that all our problems with NY seem to stem from these differences. Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ready to launch

I am prepared to launch this discussion by the end of the day today. Any last thoughts? bd2412 T 14:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I'd like to finish my simplified draft. Been busy elsewhere, sorry! Please give me until this week-end to get it in shape. — JFG ^talk 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but this discussion has gone on for a month - which seems like plenty of time to craft a fairly straightforward move proposal. bd2412 T 16:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Until the weekend seems a good investment to me. But I'm also keen to get moving. Andrewa (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Watching the dynamics of the recent conversations here, I wonder if the talk page should have a subpage for having offtopic discussions, not directly related to arguing the different criteria for or against the move.

For example, if editors begin discussing the motivations of other participants, that part of the conversation could be moved to that meta-page specialized in discussing about the status of the request, thus keeping the move request focused on the reasonings. I remember having a similar configuration at Talk:Gamergate controversy when the episode was at its most heated time, and it being useful to guide discussion and avoid disruption to the project. Diego (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No objection to setting up a separate page for tertiary discussions. bd2412 T 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, I object. As much as I would like to see the RM get "moving", I think it's important to have a gaze at JFG's simplified draft, which I suspect I will like better than the one I started at the top of this page. And there may be a need to discuss that draft a bit. So as Andrewa has said, "...and let us not rush this". As long as a month may seem these days, it's still nothing compared with 13 years of going against the consensus of the community (as you better than anyone knows from the thousands of links you and friends had to check, and all the malplaced ones you fixed (and still continue to fix)).  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have rarely been accused of excessive patience (and often of the opposite), but seeing the vote of confidence and encouragement I and others gave JFG I feel they are now entitled to however long it takes to present their draft and for us to discuss and agree on it. A few more days will not hurt. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• As long as the discussion doesn't turn back to meandering. bd2412 T 20:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I honestly don't think you've been thanked enough for the job you've done and are still doing, so yes, let's keep on point!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree. Andrewa (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust and your patience, folks. Busy IRL but I won't let you down. — JFG ^talk 05:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I guessed that was the case. Keep your priorities. Wikipedia will survive. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but will we???  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Are we any closer to launching the discussion? bd2412 T 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Which discussion would that be? Castncoot (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Which discussion do you think it is?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly can't say with any certainty. Castncoot (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And I'm sure you are not the only one! IMO we need some informal shortcuts to positively identify the various discussions. wp:NYRM2017 should be created and point to the formal RM when it is opened, assuming it is opened sometime in 2017 (;->. wp:NYRM2017prep currently points here. wp:NYRM is not a shortcut at all but a sort of non-DAB intended to lead either directly or indirectly and fairly easily to all related discussions, currently via Category:New York City and New York State move discussion pages and Wikipedia:List of New York City and New York State move discussion page sections and a couple of direct links, see it and its talk. Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of putting words into the mouth of BD2412, I'm pretty sure they mean wp:NYRM2017, see wt:NYRM. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO none of the recent discussion has brought us any closer. It has clarified some points in ways that will be useful when it is launched, but nothing vital that should delay it. I'm still waiting for JFG to report back, and hope that their real-life issues are not too distressing, and that their undertaking here is not stressing them, and if it is that they will feel free to dump it back on us just as is, so that they can focus on the things that matter most. Andrewa (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Way too complex to figure out. I don't see the need to rework whatever has been in place and this is already a huge time sink. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you think it's way too complex, Legacypac, and as the first contributor to what's in place, I can tell you... JFG's words are well-worth waiting for. And I agree, 13 years of going against the consensus of the Wikipedia community is an enormous time sink. The little bit of time we should wait for JFG pales by comparison!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Good luck :) Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Right back atcha!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am also happy myself to wait for JFG to report back as I have said. But I am also disappointed that they have not reported back here briefly (as I explicitly suggested on their user talk page that they need to do), and at least given a realistic time frame for finishing their current effort.

I note that BD2412 said on 15 June that they were ready to go. In fairness to them, I do not think I could oppose them now doing so. Or, I would also be prepared to launch my latest version immediately, as I have said. It is not perfect. It is good enough IMO.

And meantime, it is still open for discussion as a draft. It has received some favourable comments, and some criticism which has improved it. Even if it is superseded by JFG's version, critiquing it now will give us valuable practice that will shorten the process when we eventually need to critique and hopefully accept JFG's. I recommend it. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It will continue to be a huge time sink until this is fixed. The current situation:

• is degrading the reader experience
• is continuing to occupy editor time fixing mislinkings
• is contrary to policy and guidelines
• is being quoted as a precedent for further departures from the guidelines

and this can only grow. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• • I agree. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court, we should move "with all deliberate speed". bd2412 T 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Replying to User:BD2412 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC) (but I can't decide quite how to indent my reply): Then I suggest, either endorse my draft for immediate action (and say how immediate, I suggest 24 hours maximum, allow some further critiquing in the meantime but nothing major) or provide your own, and we can move forward from there. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I will be out 24 hours from now, but please don't wait on me, either. I am no more indispensable to this process than anyone else. I think your draft is good, except that with a discussion as involved as this is likely to be, it is almost a necessity to have the separated support/oppose/discussion sections, so that the weight of opinion is not obscured by excessive back-and-forth after every opinion added. bd2412 T 00:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Only thing I would note is it's a major 4-day holiday weekend in the US (and Canada). It is probably best to wait, being that it is very much an American topic. Indeed, if we want this to stick, starting on such a holiday weekend is a surefire way to get the decision overturned. oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point! How could I forget the 4th of July? Apologies to any offended.

I therefore propose to launch this RM on Wednesday 5th July 2017 (I assume that the extra holiday is the Monday - can someone verify?), at about 8am New York time (10pm Sydney time, same day - someone please check my arithmetic) unless there are better offers in the meantime. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Formally, Tuesday is the US holiday (Saturday this weekend being Canada Day), but a lot of offices and such are taking Monday as well. oknazevad (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, so that's why I couldn't find the Monday listed as an official holiday. Then Wednesday it is. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Can argue that both ways. I would like to keep this as vanilla as possible.

In theory any back-and-forth discussion should be in the Discussion section not the Survey. But that is unenforceable, so your suggestion has a great deal of merit.

On balance I've added them, so the version with them is now the substantive motion. Discuss further at User talk:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017#Support and Oppose sections in need. Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Other views? (ec)

So, you are winding up for Wednesday 5 July 2017. I looked at the signs.

People having Number 5 should speak lightly and not be harsh to people this can lower your prestige.
True. People here have worn themselves out over every conceivable point. Don't be abrasive to the nice people who you invite in.

Friends circle will increase and someone can deceive you
Be paranoid, but don't forget to speak lightly per above.

Maintain good relation with sister
Always good advice. If you upset your sister, there is something wrong with you.

Avoid -Taking debt. Invest carefully. Take care while signing documents relating to some negotiations
Be careful to not make promises beyond the scope of the question.

Lucky color –Bright Blue
Highlight the core essential text (the proposal and 25 words max of explanation with bright blue).

Lucky date-1st,3rd,8th,14th,15th,25th,28th,30th
Don't rely on the luck of the 5th. Try to get it closed on the 15th,25th,28th, or 30th.

Lucky Days – Sun and Wed, Fri
Wednesday is lucky, well that's lucky.

Remedy – Burn lamp with Mustard oil in north direction every Ekadashi
Ekadashi? Just burn mustard oil continuously.

--SmokeyJoe (talk)

There seems to be a growing momentum for that date. I'd still like to hear from JFG first. It's a bit difficult, and I'm glad the public holidays (both US and Canada) have given some more time. But would not want them to feel that they therefore need to spend the whole weekend on their proposal. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must still adamantly oppose any formal move proposal until we have had a chance to see what JFG has assembled. It's been 13 years, so I don't see any reason to rush this, and I see every reason, every little detail that makes it an absolute necessity, an imperative, to get this right this time. Strapping ourselves with an unnecessary deadline that lands us in the soup unprepared is the worst thing we can do, IMHO.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• So far as I can tell, JFG has assembled a lot of resources for writing a draft, but the final arguments here can be written by anyone. The flip side to the situation having gone on for thirteen years is that we have waited long enough. bd2412 T 15:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• If I'm outvoted, that's okay, and I promise not to say "I tol' ya so".  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's time for another go. I note with disappointment that JFG made many edits yesterday but has not commented here or on their talk page since the previous day, despite my request some time ago that they give us some realistic date for submitting their draft. The last time they updated us on this the expectation was last weekend, unless I misunderstood. I'm sorry, but this cannot be a blank cheque. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I note that User:JFG/sandbox/New York Proposed move, May 2017 links at the bottom to Draft:New York proposed move, May 2017... but it's a redlink. Andrewa (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ready maybe

I'm of two minds on this. At this stage one voice has explicitly opposed my proposal to go live on Wednesday (always barring a better offer I stress), and one seems to support. To quote a recent and involved party, virtually a tie. (;->

Maybe the comment on the holiday weekend was correct. Has the whole USA (minus we three) gone to a party? Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a holiday, so people should be off work and have more time available for editing Wikipedia. bd2412 T 21:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Naïveté ain't your strong suit. ;>)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And accuracy seems not to be mine... as I'm not in the USA that should have read (minus you two) I guess.

Parties are good. Generally speaking that is. And the rest of the world will get back to us I guess. Still hoping to go "live" on Wednesday. Andrewa (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

True... but that raises a very interesting point... perhaps they will be different people and not the ones involved in this discussion during the working week, or even on normal weekends. So they may be watching WP:RM but won't be watching this discussion. Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

BD2412 and Paine Ellsworth, I seem to be the one pinging JFG, and getting no response. Should I leave them alone now? Or would one of you like to have another go at it? Andrewa (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Remaining issues

AFAIK the only remaining issue with my draft is this: Can the rationale be made "stronger" by adding material to it?

Again AFAIK, that is the only reason that JFG is still working on an alternative. It is the only one that they have raised that I can see.

Two questions:

1. Does anyone else share this concern?

2. Does anyone have any other issues to raise?

Bear in mind that the nominator's rationale is not the end of the discussion. All those who !vote in the Support section are explicitly asked to give their own brief rationale there. And there is the Discussion section of course.

Still hoping for a Wednesday launch. Still improving the draft, and thanks to all who have given feedback so far. It has resulted in some very significant improvements. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to be honest and admit that JFG has made some excellent (and convincing) points in his draft !!!! At this point, I would not mind a move of the State article to New York (state) IF: the search term "New York" is sent straight to the New York City article rather than to the New York (disambiguation) page. Can we hold off and consider this option before launching anything? Castncoot (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Castncoot: has your account been hacked?! I never thought I'd see the day that you'd support a move of the state article . I don't actually know the answer to this question. To everyone - where do we stand on the NYC as primary topic? I assume from the fact that the proposal is to move to no primary topic, that we think that's more likely to gain acceptance in an RM, compared with having NYC as primary? Personally I probably prefer to dab page option, I don't think either topic is really primary over the other, but of course I'd be happy to accept NYC as primary topic, it's better than the present arrangement.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

personally, I think there might be a slight edge of the city, but I don't think it's so great that we should have the base name point to the city. I would oppose such a retargeting of the ensuing redirect. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Pointing the link to New York City, when editors are apparently accustomed to a degree to pointing links intended for the state to "New York" is just going to switch the bad link problem to the other direction. I believe that moving to the disambig title, at least for the time being, will get editors used to linking to "New York (state)" for the state and "New York City" for the city, since automatic "disambiguation link" notices will go out for all links to "New York". I would prefer to have that sit for a number of months before we change any further than that. bd2412 T 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly object to that. Having "New York" point to a dab page is unfathomable. Castncoot (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Then you can strongly oppose in the discussion once it has been initiated. The proposal, by the way, would not be to have New York "point to" a dab page, but to be the dab page, just as Washington, Georgia, and numerous other ambiguously named places are dab pages. bd2412 T 19:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

At some point, scale and size do matter. To pretend that they don't is nonsensical. Between the City and State are 20,000 page views per day, and this is what makes the term "New York" stand out from all of the other contested disambiguable topics. "Washington" could apply to "George Washington", and "Georgia" is a popular female name, spawning many topics with that theme. "New York" doesn't have that issue. Castncoot (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Then you can raise these as reasons for objecting once the move request is filed. bd2412 T 19:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A move has to be sensibly made comprehensively. George Washington gets more page views than either Washington, D.C. or Washington (state). I think we should discuss this issue first before sending a "New York" move to a request stage. New York City should remain forever as is. "New York" should direct to New York City. The current New York would move to New York (state). For minor spare topics, there is always the New York (disambiguation) dumping ground. Castncoot (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy of bd2412, we already have a consensus that has determined that links intended for the State will be directed to New York (state) per WP:AWB. So the argument of the bad links going in the other direction doesn't hold validity. Castncoot (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I stopped fixing those links for a while. In the ten days or so that I stopped, the number of links went from the current 150 stable links requiring clarification to over 350. Eventually, I went back to work on that task, and got through those. The intended targets were consistently mixed. There is, therefore, ambiguity. bd2412 T 19:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting New York to New York City would solve some problems. It was my kneejerk reaction before I listened to others, including Castncoot, and thought about the matter further. I even wrote a proposal for it. But wouldn't it give undue emphasis to the city over the state which is also important? And how would we deal with new incoming links? Saying there's a consensus that BD2412 and/or AWB will keep fixing them isn't a great answer; it's introducing a manual task where none should exist. Why don't we make the dab page the destination of New York for a trial period of 12 months and agree to raise a further RM in July 2018 to make New York a primary redirect to New York City? At that point we should have the evidence we need to make an informed decision on the matter. Certes (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had a chance to think about it further myself. I'm in agreement, except that I don't think we need to set a definite date to re-evaluate the topic (such as July 2018). I think that the result will declare itself soon enough as either "working" or "not working". Castncoot (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa is going to be shocked when he wakes up and sees this thread. (Smirk!) Castncoot (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He is actually relieved that the discussion is still alive. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

the result will declare itself soon enough as either "working" or "not working"... it may, and if it does then deal with that. But unless it is obvious (ie strong consensus) that things have settled down, the default should be to give it time. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be a good result IMO. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A move has to be sensibly made comprehensively. An excellent example of rantstyle. I think it means, an RM rationale needs to deal with every argument that could possibly be relevant, and so we can't yet move forward with this one. No. We can. Andrewa (talk)

No, it means that it would be shortsighted to do things piecemeal without proper planning. That said, I'm not going to object to moving the base name "New York" to the dab page and moving the State article to New York (state). Castncoot (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. We need to plan. That said, though, we've been planning this right here since 2 April, and this page's history runs to nearly 1000 edits. At a certain point we just have to get on with it  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This operation took three months to plan mainly because we expected extensive opposition. I don't want to lull anyone into complacency but that expectation may just have changed. We've already had several times more discussion than most actual RMs. Let's go! Certes (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest developments are indeed interesting. Coming up with a condensed draft for your consideration. — JFG ^talk 16:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

OMG, JFG is it really you? O praise the Lord. But anyway... yes, Certes, maybe the expectation of a difficult RM has eased, although Castncoot isn't the only person who opposed last time, so we shall have to see.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I hate to have to ask, JFG, but when? I am happy to wait for any reasonable and realistic delay, delighted in fact. But I'd like an estimate of the delay. Andrewa (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Some interesting stuff but

None of the replies etc in #Remaining issues are on-topic IMO. Therefore I'm having another try at #Remaining issues 2.

But many of the issues raised will become relevant after the RM is proposed, and some of these are being usefully discussed above. So I'll join in on these. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Remaining issues 2

The question was and and still is, are there issues remaining with User:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017 that should be fixed before I take it "live"?

And in particular, can the rationale be made longer and stronger? Or does lengthening it just complicate things, with insufficient benefit to justify this? Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of the first two paragraphs in JFG's early draft from May?

An August 2016 RfC has concluded that the State of New York cannot be the primary topic for the term "New York", due to the prominence of New York City being often called "New York", and to a lesser extent due to the existence of numerous other topics titled "New York", including songs, books, films, ships, sports teams, the New York metropolitan area, New York County, the historical Province of New York and a bunch of eponymous cities.

Consequently, the existing disambiguation page must be moved to the base title "New York", and the state article requires a qualifier to distinguish it from the city and other uses of the term. A July 2016 discussion on preferred qualifiers has shown overwhelming support for New York (state) vs New York State or State of New York as a destination title. The change will ease navigation and search for readers, and will bring consistency with similar cases such as Washington (state) vs Washington, D.C. and Georgia (U.S. state) vs Georgia (country).

I think all the talk may have exhausted JFK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you are right. And that somehow, we have quite unintentionally put them under unfair pressure. Suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 Well, firstly, express gratitude for the huge amount of effort he has made. I think his huge investment in resources, on top of what is on this page, is very valuable, as a resource if needed. I would proceed now (tomorrow, the 5th?) with the simple proposition, and go with the flow, drawing on information accumulated here and in his draft if and when required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
JFK is just helping visitors to New York to reach their destination. Certes (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
(;-> I've been making that typo a lot. Andrewa (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Although this was only an early draft, it's actually got some good material in it. I don't know if JFG intended this as something like the final version, or perhaps to includea bit more from the next three paragraphs which give slightly more detail on the reasoning. JFG, any thoughts?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly the sort of feedback I think I need. Although you've addressed it to JFK I'd like to answer too.

I don't think it's at all stronger than my shorter version. It mainly says the same things at greater length, and giving examples. The examples will probably be needed, but they can be cited if and when the rationale is challenged, to refute those challenges.

The one thing I can see that it does add is a rationale for New York (state) rather than New York State. I do not think this will be a big issue, and if it is, it's best dealt with when it is raised. Or you could raise it immediately in the Discussion section. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I like the fact that it mentions the August RfC explicitly, rather than hiding it behind a piped link with some other text as yours does. It also conveys all the information within two sentences of prose, no bullet points. Beyond that, though, I'm happy with anything that is clear and mentions the key points!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Those could be incorporated into my draft, see User talk:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017#Bullet points and explicit mention of the RfC... but let's see JFG's latest draft before doing any more work on mine. I do have some criticism of the early one (to which you redlinked above, so I'm relying on the quote), see User talk:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017#Bullet points and explicit mention of the RfC again, but I assume we'll have the opportunity to comment on that latest draft, so again let's see it first. Andrewa (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Another reason to think about

Andrew, I don't know if you or others think this is worth mentioning, but one other aspect I like about having the dab page, is improved user search experience. Currently when you do a search in the Wikipedia search box, you get this:

Whereas if we go ahead with the move, the first or second entry will say "New York (state)", making it much easier for the user to avoid the dab page altogether if they want the state. And also removing confusion for those who only know about the city. Similarly, when searching in Google, the top two results are the state and city in Wikipedia, but again it would help people if the title of the state page was "New York (state)".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. To me it underlines, again, that the primary topic criteria and other relevant guidelines and policies are right on the money. The onus of proof on whether New York continues to be an exception should be on those who want the exception made.

I have been assuming that the only benefit is to those who want to find New York City, and end up at the article on the state. But as you say, that's not right at all. Having the New York (state) article at a more recognisable title also benefits those who want to find that article. It's an excellent point.

But I'm not updating my draft for the moment, until we see what JFG comes up with. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Discuss further at User talk:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017#Another reason to think about if my draft again becomes a candidate. But as I say there, this is lateral thinking at its best. It's so obvious when you read the case above... and I at least overlooked it completely until I did. Andrewa (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't resist, I have added this and another older suggestion to my draft. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ready maybe maybe

It is now less than nine hours to my proposed launch, and I have yet to hear anyone explicitly asking for a delay, let alone for how long.

Certes, BD2412, your last comments indicated you still wished to go ahead, is that right?

JFG, Amakuru, Castncoot, you'd all like a delay I guess?

SmokeyJoe (almost forgot you, sorry) any opinion?

And who else have I forgotten? It's almost 4am here... and I have a busy day coming up... even without Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine going ahead. I will say, in brief, that a substantial move request should specify the policy basis (in this case, WP:Primary topic, or the absence thereof) and the evidence supporting the move. I grant that the global fame of the city (and the fact that it pre-existed the state) may speak for itself in terms of the state not being the primary topic. bd2412 T 18:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

An hour after I wrote Let's go, we heard that JFG is Coming up with a condensed draft. I'm happy to either go now or pause, as others judge best. Certes (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with waiting a few extra hours to get there. Not days, at this point. bd2412 T 20:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Deferred

In view of that !poll, my going "live" is hereby deferred from tonight (Sydney time, Wednesday morning for those behind us). Deferral is indefinite (and hopefully permanent) at this stage but I'm hoping for a new proposal within a few extra hours of that original deadline.

By proposal I mean

• a draft for us to discuss
• a suggested time for taking that draft "live"

and I think we need about 24 hours at least to critique a new draft, so the time might be (tentatively) 24 hours from the time we have the draft to discuss. But let us not waste time discussing the exact schedule. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Assuming (as I hope) we soon go "live" with JFG's draft you might like to bookmark User:Andrewa/NYRM links. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: "Deferral is indefinite (and hopefully permanent)" - do you mean hopefully not permanent?  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The deferral of taking my draft "live" is indefinite and hopefully permanent. Hopefully JFG's draft will replace it... soon.

I'm not entirely happy with the situation... We have placed JFG under a lot of pressure at a time when they have (unspecified) real-life concerns, and they still have given no idea of when the draft will be ready for critiquing... the few extra hours comes from bd2412. And before when JFG did give a time, some time ago, it just didn't happen. My draft is meantime ready to go, as far as I am concerned. I'm sure it is not perfect but I think it is adequate, and has been for some time.

Remember that the RM is the start of a one week (minimum) discussion. Andrewa (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I misunderstood you, I thought you meant a permanent shelving of the the entire RM. And many thanks for all your hard work on this as well, Andrewa, just in case you're feeling unappreciated and frustrated... I'm happy to go with your draft, or a slight variant on it, if JFG doesn't have time to complete it in the next couple of days (or couple of hours, I have no deadline myself). As you say, we don't want to put extra pressure on them, and I think we're all agreed it's time to get going now.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you... I think if I were inclined to feel abused and unappreciated, I possibly would a bit. But I got over that a while ago. I'm here because I believe in Wikipedia, not because I'm hoping for glory or recognition. Although I do sometimes wonder, in 200 years time, will anything I've done still matter? And I suspect that the work I've put into Wikipedia will outlast most of whatever else I've achieved. And possibly so will my edit history, warts and all. Sobering thought.

The one who really deserves a barnstar (on several grounds) IMO is bd2412. Let us see about that if and when this RM succeeds.

And that's why I'm so nervous about the no deadline or couple of days approaches. It's giving bd2412 still more work, and for no obvious benefit that I can see. They are the one with a right to complain that their time is being wasted. Don't you think? Andrewa (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify where I am coming from with this - the discussion of what to put in this proposal has been going on for nearly three full months. We all know the policies involved, and we all know the evidence. In fact, it is generally already laid out at the top of this page. It just needs to be set in a reasonably concise and consolidated form, and a number of drafts have been assembled by various editors trying to do that. It just needs to get done. bd2412 T 10:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, we are now almost halfway through the first of the few extra hours that you mentioned above, and I'm about to go to bed. It will soon happen I'm sure. But I don't think the ball is in my court right now. Happy to be told otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Good morning all. It is now more than eight hours since my proposed launch, and I guess the Americans among us are mostly going to bed now or shortly. bd2412 said above I am fine with waiting a few extra hours to get there. Not days, at this point. I am not sure when that expires, or whether they or anyone else thinks that I should set a new deadline, but if we hear nothing more in the first 24 hours (that is another 16) that gives a timescale for launching this RM, I am intending to then do so, doing it myself if needed. I set this deadline reluctantly, but aware as I have said that the original request for time to finish the new draft was Please give me until this week-end to get it in shape. That request was made on June 15, and we are still waiting.

I have reflected on this, see #But not indefinitely. Andrewa (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is that fair enough? None of us are being forced to work on this. But I have a life too. We all do. And I am keen and prepared to get this moving, and see no reason for this delay in doing so.

I concede that this delay is not a waste of time. #Another reason to think about above makes an excellent point that is new to me (I think) and which I think should be included in whatever draft we adopt.

But I cannot see it as good use of time. The RM launch is the start of the discussion, not its end. We are all (except the nominator(s)) required to provide our own brief rationale when !voting, and all have the opportunity to comment further during the RM. And any new draft will need approval, and IMO critiquing. Again, am I being unfair? Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't resist, I have updated my draft with one new and excellent point and one older suggestion. Also User:Andrewa/Things to discuss during the NYRM July 2017 may be of interest. Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

But not indefinitely

On reflection, I should make it clear that I will not launch the RM unilaterally.

But I am obviously getting impatient now. I am ready to go. My draft is not perfect. It is more than adequate IMO, and the best we currently have. Andrewa (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Heads-ups

When we go live IMO we should post heads-ups to Wikiprojects NYS and NYC. Last time they complained that they hadn't been told.

Are there any other groups or individuals who are equally... what's a polite word... likely not to be watching, and vitally interested, that we can think of? Wikipedia welcomes all... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, since the move of a disambiguation page is involved, and this will generate a relatively high number of links to be fixed. bd2412 T 18:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good points both. If we include WikiProject United States, we should also include Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography who have discussed geographical naming, both conventions and exceptions, in the past. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG draft, at last

Sorry to have kept you all waiting; the illustration was hilarious, thanks! Here is my ready-to-go draft: User:JFG/sandbox/New York Proposed move, July 2017. I hope it captures the essential arguments fairly and makes them accessible to old hands and new participants alike. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 20:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Comprehensive, concise and clear. My only criticism would be (how's this for trivial) that I'd prefer the two moves to be listed in the opposite order, as the state article moves before the DAB does. Even that can be argued both ways.

The point that will no doubt be argued is the assertion that NYC is not the PT. I had decided on a different way of handling that issue as you know. However I am happy to deal with it in the RM discussion phase. I had already decided that the Condorcet issue should be similarly treated, discussing only in need.

But I'm happy to go with that version, immediately. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy if you are. Looks fine, and summarises the main points.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I am also good with this version, and ready to see it launched. Note, Andrewa - Talk:New York (disambiguation) is a much less trafficked page than Talk:New York, where unrelated discussions are unlikely to take up a lot of space. To put the discussion there, the disambiguation move has to be on top, per the mutli-move template. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I can argue it both ways... a heads-up goes on one talk page, and the discussion on the other. So which page is more popular doesn't matter much. As far as the template goes, it's substituted, so it can be edited afterwards. My feeling is that the discussion is better on the NY talk page as those archives are more likely to be where people look for the RM, but again, it would be easier to find on the DAB talk. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you JFG, that looks perfect. Although the moves can't be implemented in the order given, it makes logical sense: the object of the RM is to move the dab, and the state article currently at the dab's new title has to make way as a consequence. Certes (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on which of the two pages the discussion goes on, but it's worth noting that all previous moves on this topic have taken place on the Talk:New York, or subpages thereof: Oct–Nov 2004, Feb 2005, Feb–Sep 2005, Mar–Aug 2008, Oct–Nov 2010, Aug 2011, Jan 2013, Jul 2013, June-July 2016, July 2016.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that New York is a big, active page, so it might get lengthy discussions entirely unrelated to the proposal (e.g., should we add this picture, should this smallish city be included in the prominent cities in the lede), which is something that has happened during previous move discussions, leading to an absurd page length. Nothing of import ever happens on the disambiguation talk page, so it is likely to be effectively reserved for the move discussion. bd2412 T 22:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. My point was just about the format of the RM header, not which page the discussion it goes on. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to have attracted attention to a trivial matter... I hope it means we have no greater concerns with the draft! Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As Certes said, the order of the moves stems from the logic of the main argument: New York State is not the primary topic, therefore its article cannot "occupy" the "New York" name, and this ambiguous title is best served by a dab page. We have seen in past debates some resistance based on the state's "natural right" to be at this title – it's very important to help people understand that titles and articles are different things: choosing the best title for a given article is not necessarily the same as choosing the best article for a given title. This move request attempts to answer the question What is the best article for the "New York" title? I believe that Ye Olde "New York" Debate can only be solved by answering this question instead of getting bogged down in subjective preferences about What does "New York" mean?

I also agree with BD2412's rationale to launch the RM on the dab page talk; the RMCD bot will place appropriate notices on the New York talk page and at at the top of both the article and the dab, so that all affected readers will see it (this process was not yet in place last time around). For good measure, we should add a notice on Talk:New York City, on the wikiprojects mentioned in #Heads-ups, and perhaps at the village pump. — JFG ^talk 03:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to fully clear the decks, I have archived all the old discussions at Talk:New York (disambiguation). It is a clean page. bd2412 T 03:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added the rationale for choosing "New York (state)" as the new title, from Certes' draft. Also mentioned WP:CCC and WP:SQS, and corrected links to traffic stats. Good to go! @BD2412: Do you see enough agreement to launch the RM now? If yes, who does it? — JFG ^talk 04:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that we do have agreement to launch the RM on this draft, and any editor is free to launch it. bd2412 T 11:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've been WP:BOLD and gone ahead and done it! See Talk:New York (disambiguation). Note that because I hit the final launch button, now it shows my name as the nominator. I'll take advice from here on whether or not I should qualify that, change the nominator to JFG's name, or take any other action. Thanks, ane let's do this thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru, it's fine with your name, this has been a collective endeavour… — JFG ^talk 14:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)