Talk:New York/Meta

The purpose of this subpage is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the Talk:New York (disambiguation)#Requested move 7 July 2017, the behavior of editors on that move request, and any meta-discussion of discussions regarding that, etc.

This page is not for discussing the merits for or against the requested move; use the Talk:New York (disambiguation) page for that. The idea is to keep the move request only for the arguments directly regarding the move, without off-topic tangents, which can be discussed here.

Diego (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Overview

In one of the previous discussions we drafted something at Draft:New York (overview). It could be worth a look at. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Is this what you meant by a broad concept article on the main discussion page? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Emir of Wikipedia! Yes, that was begun specifically to show what a broad-concept article on "New York" would look like. It's similar to a dab page; however, it is much less formal and gives more detailed information that a dab page. It is designed to be concise and yet not too concise, packed with links and information and yet not too much information, physically short and yet not too short. I think that one of the things its originator, Andrewa, wanted to show is how different a broad-concept article would be from the present article on the state of New York. I'm sure Andrewa could tell you much more about it than I can.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not abandoned and might still see a move to the main namespace, or even to the name New York, in the fullness of time. But it's rather stubby at this stage. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that if it goes live, it should be titled with the base name NY. And it was "stubby" at first; however, it has grown to a not-too-shabby broad-concept coverage that would definitely help readers who seek a general picture of what is known locally and globally as "New York".  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That would solve a lot of problems. I think there's a difference in the global perception of what New York (city) means and what New York City means. I'm perfectly happy to believe that New York City is a term that just means the five boroughs, but I'm not nearly so comfortable with saying the Metlife Stadium is not in the city (or the state) called New York. Similarly, the British Houses of Parliament are in the city called London but not in the City of London. The latter is a quirk of local culture, and I think we're all happy to accept and be educated and amused by it. Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

MetLife Stadium is not in New York. It is in New Jersey, near New York. Station1 (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It is in the New York metropolitan area. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I'm unconvinced by the need for a broad concept article. Partly because I don't really consider this a broad concept. The vast majority of readers will be looking for an article on either the city or the state. The two have somewhat overlapping histories, but other than that they are quite separate things and the dab page is able to list out the various different topics of relevance with a small download and maximum clarity.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seconded.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that The vast majority of readers will be looking for an article on either the city or the state. But what is the city? For much of the world, it includes MetLife stadium, see discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

NY vs The World

From above MetLife Stadium is not in New York. It is in New Jersey, near New York.

That's a very interesting statement. The second sentence is true. But the first is seriously ambiguous, and to most of the world, ridiculous.

I did two quick Googles. [1] [2] They're not the best I'm sure and would welcome other attempts. But they do show more ghits associating MetLife Stadium (hence MLS) with New York then with New Jersey (NJ), despite the fact that officially, MLS is in NJ and not NY.

To some, particularly the locals I guess, the rest of the world is showing its ignorance when they look for MLS under "NY" and fail to consider the local viewpoint. But to the rest of the world, those locals are showing their ignorance when they fail to consider the global viewpoint.

And in a sense both are correct. Andrewa (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I know a bit too much about the arrangement of entities in that area, and the location of MetLife stadium, but my take on this would be:

• The stadium is not in New York state, by any definition.
• The stadium is not in New York City, according to the official administrative definition thereof. It may be considered part of the city under a more fuzzy definition.
• The stadium definitely is in New York metropolitan area.

Another, vaguely related, question is whether the two NFL teams that play there (the New York Giants and the New York Jets) could be said to be New York City teams.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. But would the Jets and the Giants ever be considered New York State teams? Are there any other major league teams not associated with a city?

The distinction between New York City and New York metropolitan area is lost on most of us. Similarly, I think we'd consider an Englishman to be ridiculous if he said that we were "ignorant" just for saying that the capital city of England was London. No, he huffs, it's Westminster. Again, both are in a sense correct, in that he would be showing ignorance too. But in our case it would be naive ignorance (at worst), while in his case it would be shameful and arrogant ignorance.

I'm still contemplating how this leaves Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think when people talk of "London", they almost invariably mean the entity we have at our London article (which is actually the metropolitan county of Greater London if you want to be pedantic). Even many English people are probably unaware of the exact significance of the City of London, other than knowing it's the financial district. I think you guys have the same thing with Sydney / City of Sydney.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Nah. Of world cities, Sydney is far more provincial than New York or London. Also, City of Sydney is another of these badly titled things, due to a weird Wikipedia aversion to detail in titles. City of Sydney should be at City of Sydney (local government area), a technically administrative area of no significance to anyone except for its local bureaucrats. When you say "City of Sydney", you probably mean Sydney central business district, akin to New York metropolitan area in article size, although in scope Sydney central business district corresponds to Lower Manhattan, and New York metropolitan area corresponds to, I guess, List of Sydney suburbs. Sydney is quite a good landing page, not subject to pedantic boundary definitions. New York City will better serve this purpose when it is recognised as the PrimaryTopic for "New York". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that London is a better example. There are differences and similarities. But the point is, in the cases of Sydney and London, Wikipedia hasn't allowed these badly titled things to compromise our reader experience, while somehow with New York we have. Andrewa (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To take up a point made above The stadium is not in New York City, according to the official administrative definition thereof. It may be considered part of the city under a more fuzzy definition. Exactly. So the question becomes, who follows the official administrative definition, and who the more fuzzy definition? If it's NY vs The World, then obviously, we support The World. Still needs investigation IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To Foo or not to Foo

To editor SmokeyJoe: I'm just a little curious about your argument against WP:MALPLACED, a project page based on WP:DABNAME, the editing guideline. As long as there is a "Foo (disambiguation)" page that redirects to "Foo", wouldn't the reader advantages be the same for both types of dab pages?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages says that where Fizzboz (disambiguation) exists, presumable because of multiple unrelated topics Fizzboz (1), Fizzboz (2), Fizzboz (3) ..., but there is o PrimaryTopic Fizzboz, the DAB page must be moved from Fizzboz (disambiguation) to Fizzboz. I disagree, I think that a page titled Fizzboz (disambiguation) is a fine DAB page, regardless of an article at Fizzboz or a redirect from Fizzboz --> Fizzboz (disambiguation).

For the reader, all the only difference is the title at the top of the page. The really big text at the top of the page that should be the first thing read. DAB pages usually have short titles, and the "(disambiguation)" suffix doesn't cause length problems (title spilling to two lines on standard A4 PDF output) that I have ever seen.

The advantage to the reader is that they know from the title, and the url, that they are not at a proper article page.

The advantage to editors, if all disambiguation pages were suffixed with "(disambiguation)", is that they could know immediately from any listing of pages that these pages are DAB pages.

It's a small matter that doesn't keep me awake very often, but on my consideration of the issues, it is my opinion that the WP:MALPLACED convention should be reversed.

On the issue of New York. I think readers following a poor search query or bad link are much more likely to be confused to find themselves having downloaded a page titled "New York" that is not a proper article, than to arrive at a page titled "New York (disambiguation)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the issue since I haven't really given it much thought. On the surface I do see merit. It appears that the thing to change would be the guideline upon which the project page's details are based. WT:D would be the place to overturn the consensus formed to produce WP:DABNAME.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are making a lot of sense. But we need to get this RM over with first. I would certainly like to see more activity afterwards. This set of articles is of the highest importance. Andrewa (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, Paine Ellsworth, and Andrewa: SmokeyJoe said: "I think that a page titled Fizzboz (disambiguation) is a fine DAB page, regardless of an article at Fizzboz or a redirect from Fizzboz --> Fizzboz (disambiguation). [...] For the reader, all the only difference is the title at the top of the page."

The reason why Fizzboz (disambiguation) -> Fizzboz is the accepted way of organising links to DAB pages and Fizzboz -> Fizzboz (disambiguation) is not, is set out in WP:INTDABLINK. In July 2013, User:DPL bot reported 285,615 bad links to DAB pages. As of today, the number (following heroic efforts by WP:DPL, mostly before my time) is 28,665. Changing the rule in WP:INTDABLINK would screw up DPL bot. It's difficult enough as it is to try to keep on top of the c. 400 new DAB pages with links - often with tens or hundreds of links - which DPL bot finds every day. Changing the rule would not make it easier for readers to get to the correct page, because it would make bad links to DAB pages more difficult to find and correct.

"It's a small matter that doesn't keep me awake very often, but on my consideration of the issues, it is my opinion that the WP:MALPLACED convention should be reversed." It doesn't keep me awake either, but I have fixed over 25,000 bad links to DAB pages. Should the rule be reversed, I'd look for some more useful way of occupying my time.

See WP:TDD for the size and history of the problem of bad links to DAB pages. Narky Blert (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If the rule were reversed, people would better understand DAB pages, links to base name redirects would be fixed as double redirects, bad links would be visible through hovertext, and there would be less bad links to DAB pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've muttered on this subject before, but never before noticed multiple others take notice! The appropriate place to propose a reversal would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. Well, isn't that quite a backwater! There are a few practices like this around that are long standing but have no clear origin. It's like it is what some people started doing, and then kept doing it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reading some of that cussin' and discussin' it appears that editors felt that dab pages are readily seen as such the moment you land on them as long as they're formatted correctly, so there is no reason to include "(disambiguation)" in the page title if it isn't needed. When there is no primary topic, then it's not needed. Hmm.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Where did you find it? It sounds to me like the participants were working with an assumption that readers are familiar with Wikipedia DAB page format. I think that is a poor assumption. It also reminds me of the general title minimalist who sees little importance in the traditional large font title at the top of a document. I recall, vaguely long ago, landing on a dab page and interpreting it as indicating that there is no real content on the basic topic yet. My instinct was to start filling out that DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I found it in the first topic. The lead of a dab page is purposely made very different from an article page. If you landed on your first dab page that did not have a PT, you might not know it as a dab page, and yet you would surely know that it's not an article. The formats are very different. Moreover, if you were to try to edit the dab page, you see a large infobox at the top of the edit screen that starts out, "This is not an article; this is a disambiguation page,..." and then gives further details. Still not convinced that the "(disambiguation)" qualifier is actually needed on any dab page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
        • It goes on, invalid due to a poor premise. "Still not convinced that the "(disambiguation)" qualifier is actually needed on any dab page"? If there is a PT? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's been cussed and discussed, too. It's why some think dab pages shouldn't be in mainspace, and should be in their own disambiguation namespace, such as Disambiguation:New York and DAB:New York. Might be some merit there, as well.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Disambiguate: New York vs New York (disambiguation). Both are in mainspace. The first has the nominal advantage of being non-parenthetical. Wikipedia has developed a serious affection for the parenthetical. I like "disambiguation" in the title, so you know what you are getting before you download it. One big advantage of the contentious Avatar PT decision is that Avatar (disambiguation) is disambiguated. Avatar is such a weird word that the DAB page could well be thought to be an article on possible meanings, if it weren't for the page title. The parentheses are definitely part of the title, print the PDF to prove it. Who was saying the parenthetical is not part of the title? Wikipedia already has too many NameSpaces. No more until disposing of Portal and Book. Probably Draft (CSD#G2 the whole thing). Book? What is Book for? And then the other half that I think I'm unqualified to attempt to understand. No, no new DABSpace, please. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
              • lol, I said it had some merit, I didn't say I agreed with it. You did ask about a solution to the PT type dab page, and a separate dab namespace is one possible solution. Another of which I'm not particularly fond is to scrap the PT-article title idea and use all ambiguous basename titles on dab pages. PTs would then be the first items on dab pages, and PT articles would have qualifiers just like secondary topics do.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think such a momentous change (and it is one) would need to be approved at WT:AT. But there we have the opposite problem... too many viewers, so it tends to be extremely conservative. My attempts there have all resulted in lots of talk and no action. We need to first hatch a recommendation at some mid-popular but relevant place, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As I suggested, WT:D might be more popular than the project subpage and less conservative than the AT talk page. At this point though, I'm not sure how I'd !vote about it. I've never been crazy about that bulky "(disambiguation)" qualifier in the first place, so I'd personally rather think of a way to get rid of it altogether instead of applying it across the board. One of its funniest applications is at Disambiguation (disambiguation). How nerdy is that?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Momentous? I think there is a perspective problem there. An informed reader/research may never visit a DAB page. Google rarely lists DAB pages. They are esoteric safety net pages. For momentous, recall WP:Flow. I do agree, Wikipedian polciy wonks tend conservative. If in doubt, say no. I'm afraid that I think that is a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That might be a correct assessment; however, just for the heck of it, I decided to respond below to Station1 about their belief that JFG had expressed a minority opinion. To complete the response, I went looking for terms other than names and places that were notable and not ambiguous enough to also have a dab page. I found three types of terms: 1) terms that are ambiguous and have associated dab pages, 2) terms that redirected to dab pages, 3) and I finally found a term that, if linked with the dab qualifier, was a redlink (there was an article but no dab page). But then, further checking revealed that when I finally found that #3 type, it actually does require an associated dab page that it doesn't have yet (workin' on it boss). So I'm inclined to believe that there are a whole lot of dab pages, and that a whole lot of them don't have primary topics, and those are the types to which you'd like to see the dab qualifier added. In addition, I'm not bot savvy at all, so when I read a post like Narky Blert wrote above, I pretty much check to that user, who seems to know more about DPL bot than I do. If dropping WP:MALPLACED and its associated guidelines messes up the bot, and the bot can't improvise, adapt, and overcome, then it's up to us to do so.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dab page header?

On a vaguely related note, the French Wikipedia, and possibly others, have quite a nice header at the top of disambiguation pages, telling you that's what it is, and briefly explaining its purpose. See fr:Avatar for example. I would wholeheartedly support that, I think it's a useful thing for readers. Adding "(disambiguation)" to the page title for no reason I would not support, I don't think. It may just be what I'm used to, but there's a certain nice logic to hosting dab pages at the base title where there is no primary topic. It's sort of like an intelligent search page.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I would approve of such a header rather than forcing an unnatural "(disambiguation)" qualifier on every title with multiple meanings. The English version of this notice is Template:Disambiguation and is used on 173,000 pages, but as a footer rather than as a header. The template can also add hidden categories, e.g. {{dab|fish}} lists the article in Category:Fish common name disambiguation pages. Should we petition to change the guideline and move such {{dab}} notices to the top of dab pages like on the French wiki? I think that would look a bit heavy, though; it's quite nice that the first line of a dab page says what the term means. I would rather design a smaller notice that could be placed at the top-right corner of dab pages, in the same format as the discreet {{wikt}} notices. Technically we could probably achieve this by changing the format of the {{dmbox}} generic dab pattern (turn it into a {{side box}}), and then moving the existing notices to top of dab pages by bot. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 03:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's how a top-right dab notice would look like: User:JFG/sandbox/dmbox-side. — JFG ^talk 04:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of "(disambiguation)" in the title makes the title correct, leaving it out makes the title incorrect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The DAB header notion, while better than nothing, is a workaround while ignoring the central problem of a bad title. The DAB page is not a page about "New York", is it a disambiguation page on the multiple meanings of "New York". What is a the hatnote? Information at the top of the page that tells you what the page is? Just use the title for the purpose of a title, to introduce the page below.

"Adding "(disambiguation)" to the page title for no reason"? "No reason"?! Here are some reasons:

(1) Consistency: Many DAB pages are suffixed "(disambiguation)" because they have to be

(2) To tell the reader that the page is not really a normal page, but a disambiguation page. (the textbook purpose of titling)

(3) To provide "(disambiguation)" in the hoverlink text when wikilinked from another page

(4) To provide "(disambiguation)" in the dropdown menu of the search box

(5) To define the page as a disambiguation page in a listing of page names, such as occurs in categories, or using the WhatLinksHere tool.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Your rationale makes a lot of sense. Has this ever been proposed at WT:D? I suppose you would redirect the unadorned "New York" to "New York (disambiguation)" then? (for cases where no primary topic dominates) — JFG ^talk 07:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG. I have been saying it on occasions for so long that I don't remember where and to whom. Yes, I would have the unadorned base name "New York" redirect to "New York (disambiguation)". Any future links to New York would then be recognized as double redirects, and would be bot-fixed, and the mislinking would become visible on the page of the link, either explicitly, or in hovertext if piped. If first formed this opinion from my belief that titles should serve as titles, accurately describing the page so titled. Other advantages seemed to just follow. This argument is unusually important for New York, because the current RM is poised to make "New York" the project's most important title that hosts a DAB page, passing even "Mercury" which should better redirect to "Mercury (disambiguation)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In the thread Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_44#RfC:_Move_all_disambiguation_pages_to_a_new_namespace, I wrote "Previously, I have suggested that if all disambiguation pages were suffixed with "(disambiguation)", ... 00:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)". I haven't found the previously, but I suspect it has never been formally proposed. Interestingly, our friend User:Paine Ellsworth closed that RfC. Small world, the world of people who care about disambiguation pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This may be a viable proposal, however it would involve major changes to our collective habits, guidelines, tools and templates. Not that I fear this, having been involved in the global transformation of year articles from 1…100 to AD 1…AD 100: this was quite an adventure as well but ended up clarifying and rejuvenating this derelict corner of the encyclopedia. If you'd like to brainstorm this, I think you should write a first draft of how the new dab title policy would look like, and we should collectively look at the impact it may have, document examples and devise practical solutions to the issues we can identify in advance. Then, if the project turns out to be workable, a formal proposal could be submitted to WT:D and WP:CENT. Might take a year or so… — JFG ^talk 14:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I could warm to this idea. It's always tempting to reject any changes to the status quo, because by and large things work well as they are. The idea proposed in that last RfC wasn't actually a terrible one, either. It seemed most of the opposes were on the grounds that the proposer hadn't done a fully fledged plan for it, rather than because it was inherently bad...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

'Fraid I still can't quite warm to the idea of suffixing all dab pages with the "(disambiguation)" qualifier. Since we are talking about the basename bare "New York" title, that's a good place to begin. Firstly, the dab page is most assuredly about New York. It is about all things that can be called just "New York", an ambiguous name. And it has links to PTMs that begin with New York or have New York in their titles, but that are not referred to as just "New York". It's like when we talk about a sports team and just refer to them as "New York". "New York did great in the semifinals!" Of course, that sentence only has meaning in context, which the listener would already know. So the dab page is definitely about "New York" – all things "New York". Secondly, in this case I think the concept of consistency is or might be unachievable and a "hobgoblin". I am still, for the sake of consistency, more in favor of finding a way to rid Wikipedia dab pages of the "(disambiguation)" qualifier altogether; however, I'm not sure that's even a good or plausible idea. Next, some titles need further explanation, which is one of the purposes of hatnotes. There is no reason not to use hatnotes to explain a title just because it's a dab page. I'd still prefer hatnotes and no qualifiers over across-the-board qualifiers. Hoverlinks have more info than just page titles. As you know, though, hatnotes don't appear in hoverlinks. To fix that, perhaps dab pages should begin in a similar manner as redirects: "This is a disambiguation page. (pagename) may refer to:" or something similar. That would show up in a hoverlink. What appears in search boxes is important; however, if the plain "New York" shows up without the dab qualifier and a searcher clicks it, it will just take them to the dab page where they will readily find the page they want. Not sure how important the listings part is, because dab pages are only categorized in dab categories, and the only WLH pages that would show a dab page link are all the WLHs for the links on the dab page. Bottom line is I still have trouble with the idea of adding the dab qualifier when it is not needed (as defined by present consensus). I'd rather see it disappear entirely or be replaced by something far less conspicuous.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: From an æsthetical and usability standpoint, I also dislike appending "(disambiguation)" with the same font weight and size as the title proper. However, seeing the "dab" label in search results would in my opinion serve the reader better. A solution de minimis would be to visually tweak the title display to something like this:

Make it smaller:New York (disambiguation)
Make it lighter: New York (disambiguation)
Use a shorter word: New York (index)
All of the above: New York (index)

Another solution would be moving the dab page notice to the top-right corner as suggested above: User:JFG/sandbox/dmbox-side. What do you think of that option? — JFG ^talk 14:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, whoever dreamed up the "disambiguation" term deserves a whale-sized WP:trout! — JFG ^talk 14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor JFG: well, "disambiguation", as clunky as it appears, may have been the best choice at the time. It is nothing if not descriptive. I think we're on the right track, though. You list three good examples; however, there might be some accessibility issues, especially with the subdued color. Direct substitution of "index" for "disambiguation" is very close to that for which I've been looking. One possible clash would be the smidgeon of editors' and readers' confusion that arises from its similarity to Wikipedia:Set index articles, which perhaps have similar title problems as shown by category (see also Category:All set index articles). This brings me to:

• Pagename (dab index) – good for editors, not so good for readers
• Pagename (word-sense index) – actually two characters longer than "disambiguation"
• Pagename (word-sense key) – same length as "disambiguation"
• Pagename (base index)

All perhaps fair substitutes; however, some editors may find them less acceptable than the status quo. It's not easy to find a new qualifier that will be acceptable to enough editors to garner a consensus. I personally see benefits from your /dmbox-side page. Don't think anything but the image would appear in a mouseover, though. (sigh)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who contributed ideas immediately above. The discussion seems to have petered out but I hope it can continue (somewhere else?). User:Amakuru and User:JFG: I strongly support your idea of moving the disambiguation notice to the top of the page but would go even further. User:JFG, your proposed box does not appear on the mobile page (see here). Cf. the even more prominent French Wikipedia version which survives the transition to the mobile version (an example here). User:SmokeyJoe: Your idea for a parenthetical on every DAB page is intriguing — you would have to have a way to lock titles with no parentheticals like Bundy to redirect to their respective DAB titles. Finally, User:Paine Ellsworth, I strongly support your idea of the DAB parenthetical appearing with different font weight and with italics. I also strongly prefer "index" to Wikipedia's made up term. Would a combination of the above work? First, change the appearance of the DAB parenthetical. Then, as part of the {{disamb}} template, have the parenthetical appended to every DAB page title no matter the location. E.g. Bundy would still be located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy but the title line of the article would appear something like . No pages would have to be moved but readers could clearly see that these are not articles. What thinken ye? —  AjaxSmack  03:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am surprised that so many editors give so little value to consistency. Many important topics have a DAB page suffixed "(disambiguation)", so why not all? Or if it is bad, why OK for some? It, "(disambiguation)", is a very functional descriptor. Yes, it is a weird looking word, and I am glad I can claim nonassociation with its choice and first use. However, as a weird word it suits weird pages, non-article pages in mainspace. Does Special:Random bring up DAB pages?

Altering the colour, size, style of the "(disambiguation)" suffix in the Level 1 Heading? Surely this could be done, but I don't see it as a high priority. More important to my thinking is the search box prompts, wikilink hovertext, and the url that is displayed on most full browsers during hover, and the listed titles of categories and WhatLinksHere. These things plain text only.

Note the several advantages I listed above for always suffixing DAB pages with "(disambiguation)". Another is that it makes the footer (now proposed header) note superfluous. I think reducing on-page notes is a high priority. I think hat notes, incoming redirect notes, and most tags, are more ugly and disturbing to the reader than a DAB descriptive text in the title. It belongs in the title, in the title proper. A title describes the document. DAB page documents are "disambiguation" pages. Therefore, "disambiguation" belongs in their titles. All of them.

I am seriously considering a proposal for New York --> New York (disambiguation), or would Mercury --> Mercury (disambiguation) be less emotionally retching in the short term? Mercury is less important, because nobody really cares about mercury, any of the meanings. However, people care about the topic "New York". New York is now the most important topic for which a landing on Wikipedia results in the astonishment of the download of a non-article page under the title, bold and big, "New York". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I do see the advantages you mention, but to me they still don't outweigh the disdain I have for "disambiguation", the qualifier. I would prefer one or two short 4–6-letter word(s) in parentheses. And using that in the lead sentence would cover mouseovers, too. As to your proposal, we must ask if you would "malplace" the bare NY or Mercury title? If that is a potential part, then it might be better to just tackle the quarterback and make the proposal on the wp:dab talk page to qualify all dab pages. It might be a good place to come up with more ideas for replacements of the unattractive dab qualifier. In any case, we might want to let some major league "wounds" start healing before we actually let Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth up to bat again. Not so easy to strike 'em out. AjaxSmack, I am still thinken about your words.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Paine, I am completely on that page with you. A few words to replace "disambiguation"? "there are multiple uses"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Also thought of "(other uses)", which only works when there are PTs, and your suggestion leads to "(various uses)" and "(diversity)".  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  22:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Several discrete points:

There are three possible changes arising from the discussion above that might better be addressed separately:

1. Changing the appearance of the DAB parenthetical and/or moving the DAB notice to the top of the page
2. Using "disambiguation" (or whatever) in the title of every DAB page
3. Changing the name of the DAB parenthetical from "disambiguation" to something else

My guess is that the first would be easier and the latter two much harder. The challenge for any one of these is that long-term editors (including I) tend to get comfortable with and even invested in maintaining the status quo; it's hard to conceive of the need for some of these changes as such necessity implies these same editors have been wrong all this time.

I credited the wrong person above for the idea of changing the appearance of DAB parentheticals. Thanks, User:JFG. Read the nomination at this move request for a case where a change in the appearance of the DAB parenthetical would be helpful. Cases like that could be a springboard for a discussion of the appearance issue.

I like the idea of a test RM/RfC/whatever on a move like Mercury → Mercury (disambiguation) but don't assume "nobody really cares about mercury". (Check out the {{old moves}} log from Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) where there have been around five move attempts.) Consideration needs to be made of a point that arose in the recent New York discussion. Almost no one reaches a Wikipedia page by typing a complete term in the Wikipedia search box and then hitting enter/clicking on the magnifying glass. They either use a search engine, they click on a search suggestion within Wikipedia or link from another article. —  AjaxSmack  02:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinions etc

From above:

Sorry, but it smells like sour grapes to this outsider. The August "discussion" didn't have anywhere near the circulation as the behemoth July move discussion, and I had already expressed my views of its flaws in my original post above. It has no "new" information but instead attempts to circumvent the validity of the "no consensus" July close through a smaller, proxy discussion (indeed, look at how it was started). "No consensus" isn't something that needs to be fixed—it's a valid expression of will. I'm not surprised that the same editors in opposition to the current setup have continued to make opportunities to revisit the same discussion, the same way that I'm not surprised at the incorrigible tenaciousness of each oppose-pester thread on any divided discussion, the same arguments recurring endlessly, but that means it's up to the rest of us non-page-watching, occasional RfC participants to reiterate how the treatment is worse than the cure and reaffirm our less-imperfect-than-maligned status quo. I don't see anything further to discuss, but if need be, please split to a specific topical discussion below. czar 14:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC) [3]

Czar, I'm sorry you have formed this rather negative opinion of some of us and our actions, and feel myself that you are just expressing what many others feel too. You are perfectly entitled to these opinions. To me they don't serve as much of a basis for opposing the move, but again that is your call.

No consensus actually is something that needs to be fixed according to wp:5P4: Seek consensus...

Why is the treatment... worse than the cure? What's wrong with the proposed treatment and cure? And doesn't this presuppose that there is something here to treat? Andrewa (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(Off-topic light relief: See The Treatment and The Cure. It's a very good read, and not the first banned book to feature on the NSW secondary syllabus. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

@Andrewa, I haven't passed judgment on editors... but I do take issue when the zeal of a few can replace the largess of a drawn-out discussion. "No consensus" is the most basic form of consensus-seeking—it shows that the proposal (or repeating it...) is not the way forward. The point isn't to continually rephrase the question until there is consensus but to find affinities on the elements that aren't intractable. But hold three separate discussions on "X is not the primary topic" and get three separate answers that together won't equate when combined in the requisite grand finale proposal such as this one. The lesson from the July 2016 discussion is that this topic is intractable, and unless we are to waste great amounts of resources visiting it annually, the other solution, as you proposed from the 2016 discussion, is to have a moratorium. The same has been working well at Talk:Sega Genesis. As for treatment/cure, I've already said succinctly that the dab at NY won't improve the common reader's intent of finding the right page, and in fact would do more harm in obfuscating what I hold to be the primary topic. No, I don't think there is a problem here that needs treating besides how we handle the revisiting of common arguments. And, hey, that time can be spent expanding the sections on those Kocan books. I might be able to help with sourcing.  czar 16:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I found it smells like sour grapes rather a negative assessment.

I did indeed suggest a moratorium, and it got no support. But I abided by it, as did others, and it has now expired. And I've suggested another regarding this issue, but again nobody has taken it up as far as I can see.

Disagree that "No consensus" is the most basic form of consensus-seeking—it shows that the proposal (or repeating it...) is not the way forward. I'm not entirely sure what it means, but it seems entirely inconsistent with consensus building. Consensus is a process, not a destination. The use of the guillotine is not part of it.

I'm of two minds about pinging you again. This discussion is about all of us exploring your arguments. I still find them wanting. We will see what others think, but of course feel free to reply too if you wish. Andrewa (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

My worthless opinion is that there will always be holdouts like Czar, TB and others. They make the closer's job tougher, but not particularly difficult. The opposing arguments thus far are what they are. We must continue to rely on the fact that support rationales include strong policy- and guideline-based arguments that are aligned with community consensus. That is what will make the closer's job easier. I guess this just means that we should reassess what has been perceived as "bludgeoning" rather than as good-faith discourse and let the oppose !votes fall where they lie. None of the editors in this proposal will "win" or "lose". Only the readers of this encyclopedia may do that.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

See also the User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. No matter how many times we have a discussion, close it as no consensus, and supposedly "put this issue to bed" by retaining the status quo, it will keep on coming up again and again. Sometimes there's a gap of a few years, but it always comes up eventually, because that's the nature of the situation. It irks people. It feels like something that ought to be put right, and in the fifteen plus years that the state has been here, it has been raised consistently and regularly, and almost always closed as no consensus. Now, in line with the yogurt principle, lets suppose that this move now goes ahead. There may still be those agitating for a future move to make NYC primary, that part may or may not go away. But - will anybody ever again propose moving back to having NY state as primary? I highly doubt it. Or if they did, it would be opposed by most and closed as a firm "consensus not to move".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Should the RM have even been raised

It is of course not helpful to speculate on how the RM will be closed (probably on Bastille Day I guess), but IMO the 34 support !votes already cast [4] show that there was ample reason for raising the RM. Andrewa (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the RM will be closed on Bastille Day... it's going to need a hardy admin, prepared to don their battle garments, wade in and analyse the !votes and then write a rationale and perform a close and wait for those who don't agree to start arguing. Plus, a good number of those of us who regularly watch the RM backlog are already involved here. You never know though, it might be quick and painless!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's not we can request closure. See how it goes. Discussion seems to have pretty much settled down, most (perhaps all) of the recent new threads are arguably disruptive threats of ANI etc. and it's hard to know whether to reply or to ignore them.

It doesn't seem hard to assess to me! But I am involved, I think. (;-> And we have been there before.

I hadn't noticed the significance of the opening date +7, and thought it very funny when I did. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well here we are. Show time! [5]  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Facts and feelings

At least two editors have now expressed annoyance that this latest RM was even raised.

A third has base an oppose !vote entirely on their feelings.

I think it's obvious that some of us (on both sides and myself included) are going to be tempted to feel some anger over this. It has occupied a lot of time, and it's easy to see that as wasted time whichever way we eventually go.

But the spirit of wp:consensus is that this time is not wasted, that it will produce a better Wikipedia. And one key to this is to try to base our discussions on facts, rather than feelings. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "we discussed this already" isn't an argument against. Concensus can change, and I personally made a nomination which changed a previous consnsus, and an other discussion which extended the new consesus to other pages with the same issue; We do have a policy against re-opening the discussion soon after it wqas closed, but we waited long enough in this case. And we generally notify users from previous discussions, which I already did. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Admirable work for Seattle, Boston and friends, Od Mishehu, you scored major encyclopedic karma points there! — JFG ^talk 03:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Former discussions

The accuracy of the proposal is questioned above. In particular, it is claimed that the former discussions closed without consensus.

But the rationale for this RM is based on only two of these former discussions. One of these, on New York (State) rather than New York State, was not formally closed but consensus was clear. The other, the RFC on whether New York City is the primary topic, was closed as consensus that it was not.

I should also point out that only the policy-based arguments depend on the RfC. There are also ones from practicality. (Or in other words, the policy is correct.) Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion with your comments. Let editors express their opinions, and suppress your desire to stomp on them when they disagree with you. There is no need to have several sub-sections whose only apparent purpose is to hold your personal opinions. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to say for the record that it has been about a decade since we have had a discussion purely on the question of whether the disambiguation page should be at the base page name. Discussions about whether New York City should be moved here are irrelevant to the question at hand. I would also note that if the disambiguation page had indeed been moved to the base page name a decade ago, I would not have needed to fix twenty-thousand erroneous links last year, and would not be fixing erroneous links every day now. bd2412 T 23:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about whether New York City should be moved to this title is relevant because one or more proponents have stated that they see this proposal as a gambit to smooth the way to a future move. That is quite a gamble, though. Someone who favors NYC as primary topic may favor this proposal if they see it as step toward that goal, but oppose it if they believe New York will be stuck as a dab page for the next decade or more. It's also relevant because, to the extent that editors fixing internal wikilinks is a consideration, the number of wikilinks to be fixed will be fewer if New York City is moved to New York than if New York is a dab page. Station1 (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

...the number of wikilinks to be fixed will be fewer if New York City is moved to New York than if New York is a dab page.

Actually, the number of wikilinks to be fixed would double if New York City is moved to New York. There are 15–20 new links to the base name "New York" on a daily basis. Editor bd2412 has found that 2/3 of these are meant for the state and 1/3 are nearly all meant for the city with a few meant for other things that could be called "New York". So at present, bd2412 fixes that 1/3 portion on an almost daily basis. If editors aren't educated to not link to just "New York", an ambiguous term, and that is redirected to the city article, then it will be the 2/3 that are meant for the state that will have to be fixed. This is one reason why it is better to title the dab page with the base name "New York". So when an editor links to that base name, a bot will notify the editor that they've made a link to a disambiguation page and they need to go back and fix it.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If New York is a dab page, all links to New York will be incorrect. If New York is about the city, only some links will be incorrect. Station1 (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If New York becomes the title of the dab page, a bot will notify editors who make incorrect links to New York, and they will be fixed by those who made the links. That's education. Also, some editors have scripts to easily spot links that must be disambiguated (my script turns them orange), so the dablinks are so much easier to spot and fix. After I spot the links, I hover over them to get all the choices from the dab page. I click a choice and the the link is fixed. It's quite automatic now. That is another good reason to title the dab page with the base name "New York".  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point of my reply to bd2412. You are arguing that moving the dab page to New York is better than moving the city to New York. That's one reason why discussion about moving New York City here is not irrelevant. Station1 (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not particularly irrelevant; however, (1) there is no consensus as yet that the city is the primary topic, and (2) if there were such a consensus and if the bare NY title were to go to the city right now, the number of links to manually fix would double.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't object to me replying. Note that the essay at WP:BLUDGEON is itself an opinion piece... it has gone through no approval process. And that's OK, I often link to essays, and have written more than a few myself, including of course the one I linked to above. But I am not trying to bludgeon anyone, anyway.

The statement above Also, the first lines have inaccuracies, the votes mostly ended with no consensus/status quo is quite simply false. Isn't it? And if so, isn't it helpful to point this out? And if so, where would you have preferred I do so? Or, if it's true, wouldn't it be more helpful to correct me, rather than trying to suppress the discussion? Andrewa (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me, and yet I think that, though a general accusal of bludgeoning in an oppose vote is tacky but okay, a personal accusal of bludgeoning has no place in an RM discussion and should be taken to the accusees talk page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:BLUDGEONing is a community issue, and not merely a personal one, and bringing it up in the context of the discussion in which it occurred is not only not "tacky", it's essential for bringing the behavior to the attention of the discussion's participants, which will, hopefully, help to stop the undesirable behavior. Bludgeoning is undesirable because it tends to inhibit participation from the side of the discussion that is being bludgeoned, as editors decide to forgo commenting instead of opening themselves up to the disdain of the bludgeoner. Whether WP:BLUDGEON is an essay or not is irrelevant, the process described is a violation of basic, core, policy in that it is uncollegial, uncivil and attempts to create the desired consensus through intimidation rather than free discussion. I suggest that Andrewa stop responding to all comments now, unless he would like to see his behavior reported at AN/I. He's had more than sufficient space to express his views already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all in the perspective, BMK, and yours is opposed to Andrewa's. Can't even imagine why you see Andrewa's posts as anything other than good-faith discourse, unless of course it's because they support what you oppose? If you both were on the same "side", would you still consider their good-faith posts bludgeoning? A new perspective often sheds light on the subject. We're all here to try to come to a consensus. Please let's just keep it at that.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify, Beyond My Ken. By stop responding to all comments now, do you mean that I should make no further contributions here at all, or that I should just be more selective? Where do you wish the line to be drawn? This is an honest question. I think your suggestion is seriously ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Bludgeoning includes making the same point to multiple people. It is better to try to keep your opinions to your own !vote-thread. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. But that raises a problem if a second person, possibly unaware of the earlier thread, raises the same argument rather than responding to the earlier rebuttal. I'll try to be more concise and less repetitive. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity whatsoever. You've abundantly expressed your opinion on this matter, which is no more or less valid than the opinion of any other Wikpedian. Having had your say, indeed somewhat more than your fair share of "say", you should just point blank stop responding to any additional comments and stop posting new comments about whatever pops into your mind. It's now time for you to sit back, and wait for what the closer of this discussion determines the consensus has been. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I think that's unreasonable. If new issues are raised I should be able to respond to them. If old issues are re-raised I should be able to refer to the earlier discussion. I assume you will take it to my user talk page first if you are serious about ANI, as per WP:DR. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I considered responding to several contributions above, only to find that Andrewa had already made my points succinctly. Asking him to shut up may lead to more text rather than less. Certes (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditto that!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Biased poll

Discussion ensuing from the Oppose !vote of Ɱ

(Reminder) Oppose a biased poll. I'll elaborate on my position on the title when I actually have time, but I'd like to note that this vote is far biased by only presenting one viewpoint and bashing the other. I thought Wikipedians knew about objective and fair voting/consensus? Also, the first lines have inaccuracies, the votes mostly ended with no consensus/status quo. I highly object to such a slanted vote. Imagine if the US ballot sheets slandered Clinton and glorified Trump for all voters... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a RM and doesn't need to be neutrally worded like an RFC. Indeed, one would expect the person nominating a page for a move to present the argument for the move in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition to oknazevad's illumination above, the first lines are mainly about two discussions, the August RfC where there was overwhelming opposition to the state being the primary topic, and the comparisons among the different ways that "New York" could be disambiguated, where significantly more support was given to "New York (state)" over other forms, such as "New York State" or "State of New York". So please explain precisely what it is that you find "inaccurate"?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about whether it's an RM or not. If you ever want people to vote between two choices, it's disgustingly immoral to only bash one side and glorify the other in the text preceding the vote space. And as I commented before, the August RfC was similarly highly loaded and improper, and should be thrown in the trash instead of being used as a point of argument here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The introduction is unashamedly one-sided. This is perfectly proper for a RM. It presents the case for the proposal, then provides a space for opponents to add arguments against it. The subheading Arguments and evidence against the proposed move may be slightly confusing, as it introduces the proposers' refutation of such arguments. Otherwise, everything seems normal to me. (Disclosure: I wrote one of several drafts on which the introduction was based.) Certes (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Your only opposing argument is 'this is how RMs are done'? After such a ridiculously long process toward consensus with this issue, the right thing to do is to open another neutral large-scale vote, not have a stupendously loaded RM hidden away on a disambig talk. Regardless of the forum, major proposals like this are always and should always be extremely carefully constructed, including to present all viewpoints. Instead this is trash just like the August RfC; I'll publicly denounce whatever outcome comes of this, same as that RfC. Others should join in. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Since your dispute seems to be with the WP:RM process as a whole, I encourage you to take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, to propose a change to this system. As it stands, nominations to move, merge, and delete pages are made in an advocacy style, and literally thousands of page moves have been conducted according to this precedent. The appropriate venue to address this concern is the policy page to which WP:RM discussions adhere. bd2412 T 01:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be calm and please explain what it is that you find inaccurate about the first lines. If you don't, then a closer might completely disregard your !vote and rationale.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no vote. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

(←) Did you not read my above comment? I don't care how RMs are made, I care about such an important and longlasting discussion being attempted to be concluded using a highly loaded system. I think the only fair thing to do here would be to close this travesty and reopen in a fair style like the 2016 request was made. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this request has been made in accordance with existing policy, your request will require a change in policy. Again, I encourage you to pursue this option. bd2412 T 01:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on following the letter of the law. I don't care. This new forum for this old discussion will inherently provide a biased result, so I highly recommend its closure and reopening in a style like the 2016 request. That can be fully in line with policy, no need to change any rules. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ɱ, the text of the proposal was drafted for months by consensus on a talk subpage, which was announced several times at the same place of the previous requested moves and RfCs. If you feel so strongly about the bias in its wording, why didn't you express those concerns while the proposal was being crafted and tried to make it more to your liking, when you had the chance? Diego (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think it goes too far to call this the "letter of the law", when what it is really is the policy-based community consensus. Why do you seem so dead against going along with the consensus of the Wikipedia community?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My two pence on this: I actually think the style of the 2016 RM was one of its downfalls. It was treated as a special RM outside of the usual rules, and as such nobody was quite sure how it should be closed, and what the goalposts were. By framing this one as a "normal" RM, following the procedure detailed at WP:RM, which has been used successfully for years and years, I think we have a better chance of a satisfactory outcome. Ɱ please oppose the proposal on its own merits, if that's the way you feel, and the closer will take your views into account. But don't try to derail the process for procedural reasons; that's not doing Wikipedia or our readers any favours.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Diego: Just because the proposal happened to be written somewhere deep within a public space doesn't make my objection now any worse. Nobody would've found that proposal, and I actively watch many NY-related wikispaces. Paine Ellsworth: like I said, I don't care how RMs are often/usually made. I participate in some but I mostly focus on writing articles. And for this big of a discussion that's lasted years with hundreds of editors, it deserves an entirely fair setup. Amakuru: sure I remember the 2016 RM very well, and yes some unorthodox parts (like the closure setup) contributed to its downfall and the resulting mess, but the neutral setup wasn't one of those flaws. A satisfactory outcome would still be possible, or more possible in my opinion, with a fair introduction. I still find it disgustingly immoral to have such a biased introduction for such a monumental vote, and also immoral how the supporters are bludgeoning every last opposer with criticism. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on Ɱ, in addition to the several notices at Talk:New York, you were personally invited with a {{ping}} to comment on the drafting of the discussion back on April, together with several other editors who had opposed the move earlier. If none of the editors notified of that draft found fault with it when they were made aware of it, why would its wording be such a big deal now that it is live? If it was so "disgustingly immoral", why on earth didn't you speak up when you were personally asked to comment on it?

And as for addressing each one of the Oppose comments, that's called discussion. That there are many more editors in the support camp doesn't make it "bludgeoning". Diego (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Diego, I strongly disagree. I think WP:Bludgeon backs me up. As for the notice, maybe the ping worked or maybe it didn't, but I was on break from 4/12 to 5/10, and was in Boston away from a computer and ridiculously busy that entire week. I barely had time to edit, and I would've viewed a ping on my phone, not had time to look in depth, and forgot about it. It's not always an effective system. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're so convinced that foul play is afoot, as your comments above suggest, why don't you go to WP:AN/I with your objections? It seems there have been several responses in this section affirming the belief that this is an entirely reasonable request, and that analysing and responding the opposes is nothing unusual. But if you're still not convinced, the administrator's noticeboard seems a good place to go for getting the opinion of uninvolved editors as to whether anything has been done wrongly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Haha, nice try. ANI is quite frankly a shitshow where nothing gets done, nobody gets anywhere, barely any admins help, and it's just a back-and-forth between non-admins. I don't waste my time there anymore, nor do I really have any more time to continue with this charade. I'm near the end of my summer term right now. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The "always" dab pages

To editor Station1: in the section, Talk:New York (disambiguation)#WP:AT discussion, you responded to JFG with:
Respectfully, I believe you're in the minority on that score. Otherwise, it would be our policy to always have dab pages, not just when they are necessary.
Just curious what you mean and how that would look. Necessary dab pages are created when a word or phrase may be used in more than one way, such as Eloquence (disambiguation). So I would assume that an unnecessary dab page would be created for words that are only used one way, such as Elegance (disambiguation) (Elegance). (For the moment, let's overlook that there is actually a need for that dab page.) I guess I'm curious as to how a dab page that isn't necessary would appear, if created? Instead of WP:TWODABS, would that be a WP:ONEDAB?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Things like George Washington, China, or even Earth would be dab pages, not to mention every state. I don't think you'll find much support for that. Station1 (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Heads ups

I've suggested [6] that a list of users notified of the discussion be posted here. Andrewa (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply here giving this list of 29 users. Andrewa (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Lateral thought regarding PT

Whether or not this RM goes ahead, I think it's time to have a good hard look at the whole concept of primary topic.

• It is problematical.
• It is unnecessary.

Unnecessary: What if the destination of every ambiguous term were to be a DAB? What's the downside? I can think of only one, and that is ease of linking. But the pipe trick makes it relatively easy, and should be more publicised I suspect.

The rest of the world doesn't seem to have a concept of primary topic. Context makes the meaning clear most of the time. Why does Wikipedia need this locally invented concept? Our article titles are just there to get people to the article they want. Nobody is going to take TomTom to court and say Wikipedia has now disambiguated the title Sydney so you need to update all your Australian maps. Nobody cares what we call our articles so long as they can find the one they want, with the exception of some sometimes overzealous Wikipedians, and some COI affected individuals who see them as a way of promoting their cause and/or POV.

Problematical: It's not just New York. The China articles have been as bad, and for better reason. There are many other examples. And a major reason for this is, English is not homogeneous.

• Areas of study use terms differently. Top has different primary meanings to toymakers, to lumberjacks, to particle physicists, and to sexologists. And as a result, it's not unusual for Google web search, Google books, and common usage (however you want to try to measure it more sensibly) to give three different results.
• Geographical areas use terms differently. Dare I say New York?
• As mentioned above, we set ourselves the job of adjudicating between POVs that see the article title as a way of promoting their views. And they have a point, as we often do very well in Google and friends searches.

The current system has served us reasonably well for a long time. But a change might serve even better.

Is it worth changing it? I'm wondering whether it might be. Other thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it's an interesting thought, it would have a massive impact on our article titles though. *Every* single topic which is even vaguely ambiguous, would have to have a qualifier after it. Take tortoise for example. We all know what a tortoise is, but the things at Tortoise (disambiguation) would suddenly be in the mix, and we'd have to move Tortoise to Tortoise (reptile) or similar. I think the main disadvantages would be (a) wikilinks, as you point out, and (b) being able to type the term into the search box and hit enter, and (c) the fact that topics like Tortoise have to have a seemingly needless qualifier in the page title.

I can think of a few other radical proposals that might be options for this (not that I support them, just saying they're options):

• In tandem with your idea of having no primary topics, we do away with disambiguation pages altogether. Rely on the search functionality to identify the topics relevant to the term typed, and the ordering of pages returned as a result. The advantage is less maintenance, and less chance of topics being missed off (as I'm sure many more obscure ones are already on our dab pages). This is the approach that Britannica uses. See for example [7] and [8]. Then, if people WikiLink to the base name, they'll be linking to a nonexistent page, so it could notify them immediately or even not let them save the edit... (though that would probably be too extreme!)
• Remove the forced link between the URL of the article and the page title which is displayed at the top of the page, and thereby allow multiple different articles to have the same apparent page title. That way Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) would both just say "Georgia" at the top, as they each would if the other didn't exist. You'd want to make sure the user knew quickly which one they were at, and didn't start reading the wrong article. Britannica mostly does this using a smaller "subtitle" under the main title - see [9] for example, for New York state. Although interestingly, Britannica havne't seen a need to put a subtitle for the country of Georgia: [10] - I'm not sure if that means they consider it "primary topic" over the state...
• When a user types [[ in the Wiki editor, a dropdown appears with all the main topics they might want to link to, which intelligently fills in the most likely things as you begin to type letters. The visual editor has not proved that popular, but this could be a small and useful enhancement to the regular Wiki editor if implemented. We use the Confluence Wiki for our team notes at work, and that does that, which I find quite useful.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It would affect a large number of articles, yes, but in a systematic way that would allow almost all of the required edits and moves to be automated, and both external and internal links would all still be sensible.

Would it be a negative thing if tortoise were a DAB? What would be the reader impact? I can't see any downside there, and significant benefits, for example for an English as a second (etc) language speaker who learns of the band and wants to find out what this unfamiliar English word means. And many others. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

While this proposal wouldn't necessarily do away with DABs, it might well do away with many disambiguation hatnotes. We could have the software insert a link to the DAB for all disambiguated titles that were not naturally disambiguated. (We need a technical term for unnatural disambiguation and I don't think that's it (;-> ... or is there one already?) For natural disambiguation we would still need to manually add a hatnote. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I for one don't think this would be a useful change. The top meaning of a given word should remain unadorned. Imagine the mess if every article title for common words had to be qualified: Tortoise (reptile), Camel (ungulate), Human (species), Earth (planet), 2016 (year), Chair (furniture), Waltz (dance), Mozart (composer), Composer (person), Person (being), Being (concept), Concept (idea), Idea (philosophy), Philosophy (thought), Thought (idea), ah we're done here — JFG ^talk 20:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is that a mess? Britannica doesn't think so.

But it wouldn't be every article title for common words that needed disambiguation, just those that had more than one article. It would be harmless in most cases, and very helpful in ones that are in any way uncertain.

Love the chain of thought associations. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You should try to find a common word that does not also have a disambiguation page, Andrewa. I'm still looking for one. I finally found one, but as it turns out, the word does need a dab page.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Paine is exactly right: all the examples I cited have been used in other contexts and have a dab page. Your proposal would force us to add qualifiers to a majority of common words. I call this a mess, but you're obviously free to disagree… — JFG ^talk 13:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

lol! Don't you just love the English language! As I gradually learned about how complex English is, I was told about the "seven seas": (let's see if I can remember all of them) there's "sea" and "see", "c", "C" and cee, "si" and "Seay". And there are lots more than seven if the variations in the See also templates on each page, as well as each item's Appendix variations are considered. I read that English is the third most complex language in the world after Russian and German (can't remember which of those is more complex than the other). I started to appreciate people even more when I went to Ethiopia and found so many who had learned English as a second or third language. That just can't be easy!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Also note that we already have something similar to the Britannica sub-title mechanism: when you search for a term on the Wikipedia mobile app (not site), you see search results neatly presented with their title and a short descriptor label, culled from Wikidata. I would entertain the idea of including this descriptor as a subtitle of the page, appearing before any hatnotes. — JFG ^talk 13:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives

Going to comment on the alternatives above here. Some good stuff there. Perhaps we need a /Meta/Meta page. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Do away with DABs altogether a la Britannica: In a sense doing away with PT is going halfway down this road. The advantage is no DABs to maintain. But all of the other advantages of the Britannica system can be had far less radically, by keeping DABs and just having them all at the base names. Even if we end up with the Britannica model, eliminating the PT concept seems a good first step towards it.

• Remove the forced link between the URL of the article and the page title: I see little advantage in that. Perhaps it might make POV-pushers a little less likely to want to claim the URL for their pet meaning, but I doubt it.

• Dropdown menu: An excellent idea. It could be implemented whether or not the PT concept is eliminated. Two independent proposals IMO.

Thanks for some more lateral thinking. Andrewa (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Making perfect the enemy of good

Several oppose !voters have indicated that they prefer the destination of New York to be NYC as the primary topic. Some have indicated no opinion as to whether this RM would improve things.

Surely, that's more logically a neutral !vote?

At least one of them seems to think that this RM would improve things. But they have !voted against. Not sure how to react to that. Any of it, in fact. Ideas?

Would it be useful to ping them here, do you think? Or raise a section in the RM discussion itself? I'm cautious obviously after allegations of bludgeoning. But we are supposed to be building consensus, and (particullarly assuming good faith) discussion of these !votes might help that, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Some users believe there should *always* be a primary topic, which is a legitimate point of view I think, although not one I concur with. In the eyes of those users, even if they prefer NYC as primary, the status quo is still better than having the dab page at the base title.

Having said that, though, for those editors who do think a dab page is a step in the right direction, or at least have no opinion on the matter, an oppose vote does seem odd. Hopefully the move closer will factor that into account when looking at those user's !votes.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The tug-of-war between supporters of a dab page and supporters of NYC as primary, in addition to steadfast believers in the preeminence of New York State, is one of the key reasons that most prior move proposals failed to "no consensus". We have thankfully established that NY state cannot be considered primary, and I see little opposition to this fact now – only policy-free "I don't like it" stances, essentially. In such circumstances, the closer will be compelled to choose assigning the "New York" title to either the dab page or NYC. Policy explicitly favors the dab page, and support for NYC is not nearly high enough (yet?) to sway the conclusion towards an IAR outcome outside of policy. (As some have noted, this may yet happen in a future move request, but that's not the question asked here.) I would not go back to the discussion and stir the pot. Let everybody make their case and let the closer adjudicate. The flow of comments has already died down, so here's hoping for a swift resolution! (famous last words ) — JFG ^talk 13:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that answers exactly the question I am asking here. For this thread at least, the meta subpage has worked admirably well IMO. We're now in the elapsed listings, and I guess all watching with interest. Andrewa (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

One thing that would probably hasten a resolution is to reduce the RM backlog. I am involved in all three current elapsed listings (including this one of course) and some of the backlog, but will look at the others. Help (particularly with the other two elapsed listings - but some others are also involved I know) appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll do some. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've closed what I could, and !voted on those I couldn't close but could form a view on, hoping someone else could then close them, and they have. There's currently no elapsed section and we have the backlog to ourselves. The more often that is the case, the better the chance it will eventually be closed! I theenk. Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Practicalities if we decide to do the move

Am I right in thinking that if (and of course that is a big if, taking nothing for granted here...) someone decides to close this as "moved", there is no barrier to just going ahead and doing it? Last year, after the RM was briefly closed as move, we had to hold off moving the dab page to the base name because of the huge numbers of incoming links for the state. Now though, thanks to the amazing efforts of BD2412, those links are already going to the (state) version, so we can just go ahead and move if we want to, right?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It is actually technically impossible to move the page without assistance from a Meta steward, because it is a page with more than 5,000 edits in its edit history. Once a determination is made, a notice will need to be placed at the appropriate page to request that the actual move be carried out. bd2412 T 16:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, OK, I never heard of that restriction before!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, are you sure it's the case? Because Wbm1058 did move the page New York to New York (state) last year, which worked fine... Unless it's crossed the 5000 edit threshold since then? There's no mention of that restriction at WP:MOVE.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it refers to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Pages with many revisions. Additionally the page is move protected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The article passed 5K edits back in 2008. But as long as the move is over a redirect, we're good?

• 21:48, 7 July 2016‎ BD2412 moved page New York (state) to New York over redirect: Per closure of WP:MR discussion
• 20:22, 20 June 2016 Wbm1058 moved page New York to New York (state) (per requested move and subsequent discussion. See the talk page. New York fails the precision criteria; does not distinguish from New York City)

I think I've run into this limitation once, maybe it was when I was trying to do a history-merge? I don't remember exactly, but I think I just blew off the operation, as not worth the trouble, as I recall. wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I moved it after it was closed by a page-mover, who failed to implement the close because the page was admin-protected. wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

presumably if it's only deletion that gets blocked, it won't be an issue because the deletion will be of a one edit redirect page at New York, not a huge page.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake! The limitation is indeed for merges, not moves. bd2412 T 18:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Any admin or page mover would be able to execute the necessary changes. — JFG ^talk 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

About the disambiguation guideline

Whiff of greatness, you said: The default on Wikipedia is to continue with the last stable version. This is only true as long as you consider the "default" as "what happens when no one is editing anything". I've never seen a policy or guideline stating that the "last stable version" is to be preferred in case of disagreements; certainly WP:CONACHIEVE and WP:BOLD seem to point in the opposite direction of that. (And yes I'm aware of WP:STATUSQUO, but that has always been a supplemental essay without any large consensus around it).

It is quite usual that move requests and RfCs about the primary topic go hand in hand, since the disambiguation guideline provides precise instructions on how to handle the title of articles that share the same name (not title, as by technical restrictions two articles can't have the same exact title). In this case, could you please acknowledge that "the state is not the primary topic" is the result of a Request for Comments which asked precisely that question, and not merely a comment made by the Move Request nominator?

The idea after having a primary topic is helping readers find the article they are looking for; all the criteria (popularity, long-term significance, and the possibility to use any other criteria) mentioned at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DAB are meant to decide how to best guide readers to the most relevant articles for that name. New York is understood by the world at large to be the city. Therefore, placing the state at that base name is surprising to readers accessing to the article through the base name, even if the city is also well-known in the US with the different name of New York City (which, by the way, is much less common everywhere else). Diego (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. And for your comment that "the vast majority of readers (are) not interested in [disambiguation] pages": no one is interested in reading Google search results, yet it remains the #1 most visited website in the world. It is a tool to reach a goal, not a goal on itself. It doesn't matter that no one is interested in the tool as such, as long as it's the most efficient way to achieve what the tool does. Diego (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Reading this post, Whiff of greatness, I gained the impression that you thought that the fact that the NYS article is currently at the base name was evidence that it was the primary topic. As Diego Moya says, that has it backwards. I think this may explain why you think that others misunderstand the guideline. Can you clarify? Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for the procedure described above, which I will describe as the "stage theory of designating a primary topic." Designating or undesignating a primary topic is a side effect of a title change. The default is for a title to stay where it is until there is a consensus to move it.
In my original post that kicked off this thread, I gave a list of references that have entries on the state that are titled simply "New York." Following a procedure that is standard in the publishing industry minimizes surprise. Only a tiny percentage of readers are even aware of the primary topic issue. It is hardly likely that they are surprised when a very specific interpretation of it is violated.
If trailing parentheticals and disambiguation pages are such brilliant ideas, why aren't other sites using them? There are a few of them on Britannica, but this is because the online version was created by combining works that existed separately in print (the Micropedia and the Macropedia). Who thinks that disambiguation pages are the key to Wikipedia's success? I am not proposing that they be abolished, only that they be properly labeled with a paranthetical. A dangerous amount of obsessive energy was required to create them all. Who knows what would happen if that kind of energy was let loose on the the encyclopedia proper? Whiff of greatness (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The default is for a title to stay where it is until there is a consensus to move it. Yes, that's more or less what I said; I'm glad we finally agree with something. What I don't agree is that such tautological fact (things stay where they are until you move them) could be argued as a reason to avoid creating a new consensus to move the page.

Designating or undesignating a primary topic is a side effect of a title change. If such is the case, that's why the requested move was started, to produce that side effect and make "New York state" not the "primary" topic (i.e. not the one pointed to). Rejecting the move because the state is primary would result in kind of circular reasoning, if we use that simple definition of what is primary (namely, what is now, rather than what it ought to be.

Your examples pointing to New York as the state as if it was an "industry standard" are, once again, repeatedly ignoring the instances where New York is equally a description of the city, which would also be an industry standard by that reasoning; such as the link you provided to the city of New York at Columbia Encyclopedia, or the disambiguation pages found at Oxford dictionary or Merriam Webster or the Free Dictionary and Dictionary.com, which all list both meanings. If you want to follow standards, providing a page that lists the city and the state when looking for "New York" seems to be the standard procedure in all them (except for the Cambridge dictionary, which apparently only lists the city.

If trailing parentheticals and disambiguation pages are such brilliant ideas, why aren't other sites using them? You've never heard of a Bibliographic index? The particular form of trailing parentheticals is a specific quirk of our software platform, that other websites don't share; but thesaurus and dictionaries that list entries according to either their similar meaning or similar shape, are common tools in documentation science.

And if you think that classifying and organizing content is such a waste of time, why do you think we have all those Categories and List articles? Creating indexes so that readers can know what knowledge is contained in the encyclopedia is an essential part of knowledge preservation; often as important as writing the content itself, is making sure that the readers can find the content most relevant to their enquiry - there's even a scientific discipline around it. Diego (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Designating or undesignating a primary topic is a side effect of a title change. No, that's exactly what it is not, and that's exactly the issue here. Primary topic is a Wikipedia criterion used to help decide what the full title of a page should be, not the other way around.

The default is for a title to stay where it is until there is a consensus to move it. Exactly. But consensus is for the closer to determine, not the participants. So we can't argue either way from our own assessments of what consensus might be.

There might even be a case for a future change to the guideline on this. As observed elsewhere by others, lack of consensus on PT might well be accepted as an argument that there is no PT, and so the default in controversial cases like this should arguably be that the base name destination becomes a DAB, by default. But that is also for the future at this stage. Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of you have argued that the base name should always lead to the disambiguation page. This amounts to an ideological opposition to the concept of primary topic. The guideline was written by people who thought primary topics were a good idea. It does not support this view.
@Diego Moya: No, none of those dictionaries use disambiguation pages or anything similar. What they do is put two entries on the same page, one for the city and the other the state. Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of you have argued that the base name should always lead to the disambiguation page. That is blatantly false. Frankly it's becoming difficult to still assume good faith on your part when you keep dismissing the evidence showing that the name has two uses, and now you are misrepresenting the position of other interlocutors, in order to what, win the debate? I've always supported having primary topics at the base name just like the guideline recommends, i.e. when there's a firm consensus that the topic is primary; which clearly is not the case here. I dare you to find one of my posts which can be vaguely constructed to mean that I would oppose primary topics as redirects to their article in every case; otherwise I request that you strike out your assertion. Diego (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So if there is a "firm consensus" for a primary topic, you'll respect that. That's big of you. I take it that aside from this narrow exception, you do not support primary topics. And how do you know if a consensus is firm anyway? Test it with an RM! It's the only way to be sure. So even "firm consensus" primary topics won't necessarily get a break. Whiff of greatness (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I certainly will. I formed the view that, even if NYC is the PT, the best way forward is still this simple two-way poll, for many reasons, see User:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017#Primary topic, User:Andrewa/Condorcet and New York simplified#If this RM succeeds and many other places, but is that enough? NYC at the base name is perfectly acceptable. It's just NYS at the base name that is ridiculous, but is proving difficult to change.

But of course if this RM is defeated, even if it closes again as no consensus, we are not even back to square one, we will have gone backwards. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of you have argued that the base name should always lead to the disambiguation page... in my case that is arguably untrue and highly misleading. I have in the last few days (only) suggested that perhaps we should do away with PT entirely, but that's not even a proposal at this stage, and it's motivated by the colossal time sink that this seemingly trivial issue has been. So it's this discussion that suggests that our current PT guideline may be broken, not the other way around. My case for moving the state article is based on current guidelines, and practical issues, not some speculation as to how to improve the guidelines. But I do plead guilty to this speculation!

PS it's the fix that is seemingly a trivial matter of housekeeping. The damage this has done is anything but trivial. Which should have made fixing it a trivial matter. Nope. Hence the question... how can we do better? Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote this? Some other Andrewa? Whiff of greatness (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I wrote it, and the edit history clearly shows that. Six days ago, by my arithmetic, as I said above but not that specifically. So thank you for the diff, I would have supplied it above but didn't think it worth the trouble. Happy now? Andrewa (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Just one item in "elapsed" or "backlog" at the moment...

But nobody's biting yet!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That may be because discussion hasn't really stalled yet. I'm partly guilty of that, even though I promised myself to only reply to previous threads that address me directly and not to start any new one. Although there also have been some new not-votes recently. Diego (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say discussion has de facto stalled. The main activity has just been bickering between a few of the regulars which isn't adding anything much to the debate (and yes, I've done a bit of that just as you have, can't leave it alone sometimes ). As for !votes, there has been one new oppose (on Saturday) and one new support (this morning) in the four days since the debate expired. I think this is definitely ripe for closing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Still no elapsed, no other backlog. I'm going to wait at least a week or so before formally applying for closure. But agree it seems ripe for closure at this point, while noting that my assessment of this doesn't count for anything. And I'll try to keep the backlog otherwise empty in the meantime, which means keeping the elapsed list under scrutiny, closing what I can, !voting on others where that might help produce a valid close, and relisting those on which I can't yet form either opinion and in which I am not yet involved. That's a useful byproduct too. Help appreciated! Andrewa (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The future of disambiguation

The autocomplete feature is taking on more and more of the work of disambiguation. There's now even a picture for each entry. If you search with Google, your already bypassing all the disambiguation that gets debated so passionately. The concept of primary topic goes down poorly with too many editors. Perhaps it's too hierarchical for a democratic age, too ideosyncratic for those who worship at the altar of consistency. The approach requires a bit of knowledge, skill, and good faith to apply. All of these are getting harder and harder to come by. The future is parentheticals for all -- or parentheticals for none. Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Whiff of greatness: Perhaps we do have a philosophical problem, however in the meantime dabs are the way WP addresses the issue of homonymy, and it's been a rather solid system so far. Some realistic proposals are being debated above. Perhaps you would like to comment on the #Dab page header? proposal. — JFG ^talk 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The autocomplete feature leaves behind people on weaker devices with poorer internet connections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There will always be a need for disambiguation, but as I said when I started the section #Lateral thought regarding PT, I've become a bit sceptical that Wikipedia's concept of primary topic is at all helpful. I've used it extensively and never before questioned it. But I am now.

When it was invented (and yes, it may have been invented specially for Wikipedia as far as I know) those who did had little experience in writing an encyclopedia, and no experience in collaboration on the scale of today's English Wikipedia. Considering this, it seems miraculous how much of what they created is still in place.

I suggested that the concept of PT was both unnecessary and problematical, and provided some reasoning behind both of those conclusions. And I don't think that either of them has been effectively challenged as yet. I'm not interested in promoting any changes to current policy and practice until the current NYRM is closed at least. But after that, and when I can get some perspective back, I'd like to have a good look at several ways in which we might do better, none more radical than that one (although some could be suggested) and some far more modest. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The current count is 41 support to 15 oppose, so I'm expecting New York to become New York (state) imminently (ugh!). It's hard to see what the point of the primary topic guideline is if can't be applied in a case as clear cut as this, so I'm preparing a fall back position. Whiff of greatness (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that there is no point of the primary topic guideline is if can't be applied in a case as clear cut as this. That's the whole reason I am questioning the current guidelines! There has been a clear consensus that NYS is not the PT for many years. And so the base name New York cannot be used as the article title for NYS. Why was that so hard?

The best fallback position is already incorporated in the proposal. There is no reason not to have a second RM to determine whether NYC should be at the base name, in fact I am strongly in favour of doing exactly that, as are several others who have !voted to move. I suggest another years' delay. It has taken more than twelve years to create this fiasco. If we sort it out in a little more than two I will feel very chuffed.

There is no overriding reason for this delay. I think it's in Wikipedia's interests because there are short-term benefits in having the DAB at the base name in order to undo the damage of twelve years of error, and also because I think that the second RM has a much better chance of success after this period of stability. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

PS it's not a head count of course. But it does look promising. I certainly can't see how the closer can conclude it's virtually a tie this time around. But I was surprised at that last time too. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

And it's closed! Unless it gets challenged, it seems we've finally managed to achieve what I had been hoping to achieve for the past 11 years, since my early days as a Wikipedian, when I was first WP:ASTONISHed to see NY state at the base name. Thanks to everyone who has participated in this process (both for and against the proposal), it's been a good exercise in consensus building and discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 19, 2017 -- the day primary topic died. I'm a little verklempt now, but I'll have more to say after I pull myself together. I look inside myself and see my heart is black. You tried to fly higher, but the levelers took you down. Whiff of greatness (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My love will laugh with me before the morning comes. I note among the closing comments There were a number of comments that New York should be the title for New York City, both among supporters and opposers, but that, as has been said, is a discussion for another time. As I have also said, I would recommend a delay before deciding this, even as much as another year, but I am strongly of the opinion that it should happen.

But you may be right about PT. And as I have also said, this long-running fiasco, in which the PT guidelines have been blatantly and repeatedly and ridiculously and quite mysteriously flouted for years and years (I see no reason to pull that punch), has often given me verklempt too. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Reading the very thorough closing comments, and considering the 41:15 (2 neutral) head count, MR seems pointless to me. But I could be wrong, and some might consider me involved. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, Andrew, I don't think you're involved. It seemed like you had no opinion on this topic one way or the other...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That must have been verklempt on my part I think. But your similarly uninvolved comment appreciated.

This RM has been notably less ranty than any previously on the topic. Can we continue the trend (arguing from one data point only you will note) with an even more rational discussion on NYC as PT? In the fullness of time. Hopefully. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ancient lateral thinking

While fixing links to New York talk pages in archives, I stumbled upon this 2011 gem:

“ Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 36#Proposed clarification: No consensus for primary topic means the page becomes a disambiguation page ”

whereby editors opined:

• An example of a big discussion where this might have made a difference is at Talk:New_York_(state)/Archive_4#Should_New_York_be_a_disam_page. There was support for making New York City the primary topic for "New York" (because it is), and there was support for keeping New York State as the primary topic (for reasons of aesthetics and local patriotism, which the closing admin apparently considered to be genuine arguments). There wasn't much explicit support for having no primary topic (i.e. "New York" as a dab page). But should the admin have imposed the "no primary topic" solution anyway (rather than simply maintain the status quo)?--Kotniski (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, perfect example. In fact, that proposal was specifically about moving the dab page to New York, and every support !vote, which was the majority, supported that. Reminds me that it should be proposed again.... --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • So the dead horse can be beaten yet again? Powers ^T 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No, to develop consensus, finally. Hey, if we can do with Yogurt, we can do it with anything! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor Born2Cycle, of Yogurt Principle fame, will surely be delighted that the New York horse from 2001 was finally revived. — JFG ^talk 22:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent catch, added to Wikipedia:List of New York City and New York State move discussion page sections. Andrewa (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Zombie horses!!! Yay! Diego (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't make the same mistake twice. Keep coming up with new ones (don't know who said this first, I got it from a desk calendar which did not cite a source)

If you make a mistake, don't worry, you're human. If you make the same mistake again, don't worry, you're normal. But if you make the same mistake 1,000 or more times per second, I'm very sorry, you're a computer. Original. Andrewa (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)