Jump to content

Talk:New York (state)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

demographics

African Americans were not singly the largest ethnic group but together with West Indian blacks make that figure. per census italians are largest single group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.113.91 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}} Under 'Government', the ny.gov/governor/ link shown has been moved to www.governor.ny.gov 75.202.133.18 (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just busy updating governor stats; new york is special, paterson left office at midnight, checking all reference, glad to help. 75.202.133.18 (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

war with Vermont?

United States Bill of Rights and Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution mention a peace treaty between New York and Vermont without explaining why a peace treaty was necessary or what this even means - and neither do the articles on these states nor even History of New York or History of Vermont. Very strange. --Espoo (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The treaty was over a land dispute, when New York claimed Vermont under its colonial charter. Ceding those claims allowed Vermont to apply as an independent state. --70.181.166.87 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency regarding the number of square miles in New York State

In the entry for New York State I noticed that the first sentence under the "Geography" heading indicates that "New York covers 49,576 squre miles (128,400 km2)" but in the table at the top of the website (under the map showing where New York is located within the United States) it records the Area of New York as 54,556 square miles (128,400 km2). I thought, since 13.3% of New York lies over water, perhaps the smaller figure is the land area? That doesn't work either, 49,576 inflated by 13.3% equals 56,146 rather than the higher number quoted on the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.29.6.2 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. The problem is different sources use different areas. What happened is that in September someone changed the area in the body based on the World Almanac but didn't change the infobox. I've made them the same with a footnote about the discrepancy among sources. Station1 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

New York U.S. grape production ranking

Under Economy, New York is listed as the third-largest grape-producing state after California. According to Wine America - The National Association of American Wineries, "The nation’s top grape producing states are (in volume of production order): California, Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania." This coincides with New York's ranking as number three, but it should read "after Washington". Please see: http://www.aswawines.org/documents/news/2009-Wine-and-Grape-Policy-Conference-Facts.pdf --Gille86 (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

– Both the city and state are called "New York". Although sometimes "State" or "City" are part of an official name (e.g., Michigan State University, Kansas City), that is not the case for either the city or state of New York. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose having New York City titled as such is a natural disambiguator. This move won't improve anything. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose See FAQ above. This has been discussed ad nauseam and no clear direction ever comes out of it. Nothing clear will come out of this one either. I also don't think this solution is a good one. There have been better suggestions in the past that haven't been supported by consensus. upstateNYer 14:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Been discussed forever. I've tried earnestly to move this article to "New York State" because people actually use this term precisely because of the natural ambiguity of "New York", but have never made any headway. Anyway, Use the Common Name.--Louiedog (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "New York City" is a widely attested usage (especially in the NYC area) that is a natural disambiguator. That is, it doesn't require the use of a parenthetical, which should never be used if a non-parenthetical alternative exists. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated in previous discussions and above. The proposer is correct that neither "State" nor "City" are part of an official name, but common names are preferred on WP anyway, and "New York City" is one common naturally disambiguated name. More importantly, the proposal implies "New York" would become a dab page, which is far worse than having it point to either the state or the city, at least one of which is the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but... I'd still like move New York to New York state, while making "New York" into a straight disambiguation page and keeping New York City just where it is. While I've always been a passionate believer in removing the confusion and inconvenience of using "New York" for something that's far more often used for the city rather than the state (ditto for "Politics of New York", "Economy of New York", etc.), there are just enough uses of unqualified "New York" for the state (presidential elections, census returns, Congress, constitutional history, etc.), and there are enough Wikipedia editors [and thus readers] who think of "New York" as the state, that the best use of "New York" is as a disambiguator. This would also be a good place for a very limited and well-selected number of other uses of "New York" (not as many as in the existing disambig. page), such as New York County and the most important films and songs with that name. Cf. Greater New York. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, common names, not official names. Powers T 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Oppose–LtPowers is completely right that these are common names and not official. There is no established protocol for whether state is capitalized in New York state or not (though most professional places I have seen do not capitalize it). This is a perennial topic that keeps having no consensus. The FAQ was supposed to stop this. I propose a new proposal–complete banning of this topic and anyone who starts this proposal of moving again gets their proposal closed automatically, no discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a little extreme; there's no harm in revisiting now and then to make sure there's still no consensus to change anything. Powers T 00:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe a clearer note at the beginning of the talk page (instead of the well hidden faq's) will do better. But as long as Sinatra doesn't sing "New York City, New York City" (and due to his position in life he never will...) people will keep wondering and coming back to this topic. Joost 99 (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Er, you know what the second "New York" refers to, right? Powers T 12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
          • The State that never sleeps at night.... Joost 99 (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
            • My point was that Ol' Blue Eyes would sing "New York City, New York State" if changing the lyrics. So using that as an example of the primacy of the city makes no sense. Powers T 16:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
              • I just commented a better note/warning at the beginning of the page might be helpfull to avoid such long repeated polls in the future. I only used the song to point at a well known use of the simple "New York" that might trigger such discussions (in hindsight only semi-correct, but I doubt I'm alone on that, think Paris, Paris, Paris :-) Joost 99 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the second move. The city is actually popularily called "New York City", so that title is only natural for the article, and avoids confusion with the state. JIP | Talk 16:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose both proposed moves for the reasons stated, especially the common name policy. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and previous discussio ad nauseam. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it stands. However, I might be flexible to changing it to New York (U.S. state) to line up with Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (U.S. state). - Desmond Hobson (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as earlier Opposes above. New York and New York City are national - if not global - standard terms and are easily distinguishable. --Seduisant (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't particularly like this proposed solution, but still see no reason for the state to be treated as the primary topic for "New York", when everyone knows the city should be. "Natural" or otherwise, we are misleading readers into believing that real-life undisambiguated references to "New York" are more likely to be to the state than the city, or that "City" is required when referring to the city in encyclopedic English in a way that "State" is not required when referring to the state. --Kotniski (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—shnyusasl 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you perceive to be a problem? The coordinates look OK to me. Deor (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Area in 27th place?

Why is the area of New York in 27th place? it should be third.It is at LEAST the 18th biggest state in the US. 166.82.187.246 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is your source?Gregory Heffley (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The map is my source.But the only reason why I see it would be i 27th pace is because of the water in the states.166.82.187.246 (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The area is correct, New York is the 27th largest state. Maps deceive the eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection review

I'm removing the semi-protection on New York, which was applied in April 2009 in response to a lot of vandalism, especially by non-registered and new users. For those that actively watch this page, please keep an eye on it and let me know if you see an uptick in vandalism. The page will remain sysop-only move protected, considering the name has been debated very frequently (see above). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has once again been semi-protected. User:Tbhotch identified 11 of 12 edits in 6 days while the article was un-protected were vandalism. It looks like this page needs permanent semi-protection to prevent persistent vandalism in the future. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Information

English is not the official language of New York! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please give references to support this statement JDOG555 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly English is the defacto language of New York, but as far as I know, it has never been formally adopted as the official language of the state. It is hard to prove a negative, but Languages_of_the_United_States#Official_language_status uses [1] to support the assertion that there is none. In the absence of a source to the contrary, and in light of the challenge to an unsourced statement, WP:V suggests it should be removed in the absence of a source. Monty845 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Support removal. JDOG555, it's a disputed affirmative statement "English is official language", so that would require a citation per WP:V policy or removal as having no WP:RS support. It's not a falsehood to omit mention of it (what is being done here) until/unless someone finds a cite (not replacing it with "there is no official language"). The negative could actually be proven, since there is likely a complete set of items to inspect ("check every item in Set A" allows proof of either "X is in A" or "X is not in A") or via secondary/tertiary sources (tourism materials or other publications, especially aimed at foreign tourists?) that might state it (again per WP:RS). DMacks (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:New York State current license plate from 2001.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:New York State current license plate from 2001.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Post removed by original poster. Citation listed under "Area" refers to the differing area values for the state, which obviously include water area (the larger figure) or don't include water area (the smaller figure).TheKurgan (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The British didn't annex New York

200.2.179.174 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 21 maart 2012 200.2.179.174 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) inhabitant of Suriname

The British didn't annex New York. In the Dutch-British war Suriname, a very rich plantation of the Dutch in the Guiana's was captured by the British. The dutch changed the name to New Amsterdam. When the war was over the Dutch agreed to trade the two territories, since at that time NY was a simple Indian trading post and Suriname a thriving plantation economy.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschiedenis_van_New_York_City http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname

Please provide some non-Wikipedia sources to support your claim. Powers T 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

The following coordinate fixes are needed for: 

   Region is IN, should be US.

NOTE: Region is incorrect on Turkish page only: 

 http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york

- Bernie

This talk page is for the English-language article only. If there's an issue with the Turkish version, it needs to be addressed there, not here. (And it doesn't seem to be an issue anymore; may have just been some vandalism with the Turkish article. Regardless, this isn't the place for it. oknazevad (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Right! this is the English-language article, not TurkishIncaking below (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't edit this at all, it is really annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.45.17 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Native Americans

I've never edited this page and don't intend to now, but to me it seems appropriate that some mention should be made of Indian reservations in NYS. I've heard that there's one on Long Island, and I know Gov. Cuomo had to negotiate with some to allow gambling in Catskill area, and I assume there are more further north. -- kosboot (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

National Parks

The article currently claims there are 22 national parks within New York. This is, of course, patently untrue, as there are only 50-some national parks in the entire country; the actual number is a big fat zero. (See List of national parks of the United States.) Does the article mean that there are 22 areas protected by the United States National Park System? (See List of areas in the United States National Park System.) If so, the number seems a little low, and the phrasing is incredibly misleading. Powers T 15:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

article name

It's been four and half years (in July 2008) since the name of this article was discussed in depth and nominated for moving (ie. renaming) or not, so I wonder if it could be revisited. 'New York' on its own, as a commonname, refers to both the city and state. 'New York City' is certainly a widely used common name for the city of New York, so I would say that article's name is fine; I'd like to see this page named New York (state), to reflect that the state of New York is quite commonly refered to as simply 'New York' but that disambiguation is needed, as the city of New York is also quite commonly refered to as simply 'New York'. Mayumashu (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose be done with New York? Redirect to thiis article or make it the dab page? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I would redirect it to New York (disambiguation). Mayumashu (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

History of 1900-2013?

Our main history section here only covers through the 19th century (with mentions of immigration continuing hence). As a native of NY I can assure you, we continued to have history after 1900. Some of it quite spectacular. The sub-article on NY history includes some information. If someone were so inclined, I'd suggest a summary of the 20th century at least belongs here. NYC alone should provide fodder, let alone us poor upstaters. I am not a writer or historian, so I yield to the better part of valor here, but please believe me, NY continued to have history up until quite recently. 204.65.34.167 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2013

Please add the following External link to the Tourism and recreation category:

This is a link to an Amateur Radio related website for a "Special Event" which commemorate an historical occasion or other special event (Call sign - See Amateur Radio topic). Many special event stations provide a special QSL card or certificate. The state of New York, being one of the Original 13 Colonies, participates in this yearly event (the event organizer is a New York resident). Dzabawa (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Doesn't seem to be significant enough for this article, as it is a very specialized link for such a general purpose topic. I will also note that there is real concern, already tagged, that the external links at QSL card already violate the external link guideline, and so are a terrible model for here. Indeed, this seems quite promotional, and utterly inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

Please, place a link to the article "Treaty of Westminster (1674)" in the text "Treaty of Westminster" under the "17th century" topic.

Treaty of Westminster Morone (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jason Gunther

He is the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.219.161 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(local pronunciation [nɪu ˈjɔək])

This is by no means the only local pronunciation. There are several possibilities. (It's a pretty big state. Talking of "the" local pronunciation is almost as ridiculous as talking of the "local" pronunciation of the Chinese name for China.) ([nu ˈjɔrk]) would be used in much, if not most of the state. (It is quite common even in "non-rhotic" New York City.) Kostaki mou (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

state flower

Why is there no mention of the state flower and bird? 69.122.4.110 (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in New York

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New York's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MLA Data":

  • From Georgia (U.S. state): "Georgia". Modern Language Association. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
  • From Texas: "Texas". Modern Language Association. Retrieved August 11, 2013.
  • From Pennsylvania: "Pennsylvania". Modern Language Association. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
  • From Ohio: "Ohio". Modern Language Association. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
  • From California: "California". Modern Language Association. Retrieved August 11, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

new york --> NYC

On good merit, I believe (for the due expedience and non-hindrance of the Wikipedia user experience and heuristics) New York (the query itself) should redirect to the City of New York. São Paulo does not redirect to the state itself; Rio de Janeiro does not redirect to the state itself. It's a proper, and upstanding request -- please make changes swiftly and accordingly. All best.

If you want, you can make such requests by going to WP:RM. You might find Talk:New York (state)/Archive 3 interesting--it has the result from when the last attempt was made. One big thing is that the state of New York has multiple major (well, mid-major) metropolitan areas that are not part of the NYC metropolitan area, and also, states in the United States are very powerful sovereign entities. That may or may not explain things. Red Slash 08:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Perennial topic, never going to happen, but I love the "please make changes swiftly and accordingly" demand an interesting twist and one that Wikipedia has never been able to do.Camelbinky (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:Consensus can change, but this always lands up on Talk:New York where it falls to the understandable resentment of Upstaters and Long Islanders at the automatic assumption that New York beyond the Five Boroughs either doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Apparently, however, the huge preponderance of visitors click "New York" as they would "London", "Paris" or "Chicago", in search of the City. The clear resolution for me, though it goes against Wikipedia's convention about disambiguation, is to make "New York" itself a disambiguation page directing to both the state and city pages, and to specify "Politics of New York State" and "Politics of New York City" in place of "Politics of New York"; similarly for "Economy", "Culture", "Government", "Demographics", etc. However such a suggestion seems always to get sidetracked by debates over whether to make "New York" either one or the other, state or city. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no such proper noun called New York State, not on Wikipedia nor anywhere in real life. Newspapers such as the NY Times and local newspapers throughout the state lower case the S in state when disambiguating between the two, but invariably capitalize city in New York City. New York is the correct and legal name of both. We do not put the state of Washington at Washington State, and no way is anyone going to say that the state of New York is the only US state that should have its status put in its article name as if that was the proper name. New York State does not exist, never has, never will despite the ignorance of individuals who don't realize that parenthesis have not always existed for usage for an aside comment, which is where the term New York state and New York city originated; the words state and city were side comments used for disambiguating, and over time some morons decided to start using the terms as proper names instead of using the newly invented idea of parenthesis. A "reliable source" that uses the terms New York State and New York City, while reliable for other information, does not necessarily become reliable for EVERYTHING such as the use of those terms, every source must be considered reliable only for the information it gets right, reliability is not inherited to all information in the source such because it is reliable in one case. So, again- perennial topic that will NEVER happen and no, consensus will not change because there is no consensus, and that's how it shall be forever.Camelbinky (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I realize I'm coming late to this particular game and that this point might be made elsewhere, but shouldn't usage be reflected? I.e., if more people use the term for the city rather than the state, then shouldn't the redirect be to the city? I would be hard-pressed to bring actual evidence to bear, but I'd imagine outside of Upstate New York, most people are thinking of the city when they use the term — not the state. Aemathisphd (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, it might be worth it. The question is really, when people type in "New York", what do they expect to find? And that's hard because many many many people who want to go to the NYC article do so by typing in "NYC" or "New York City" or "New York, New York" or any number of other things. Red Slash 02:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

NYC Central Park average high

I have calculated the July average high for NYC central Park using the NCDC Daily Summaries Daily Summaries Station Details: NEW YORK CENTRAL PARK OBS BELVEDERE TOWER, NY US, GHCND:USW00094728 | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and the July average high is 84.88666667 therefore the July average is 84.9°F not 84.1°F , 84.1°F is dubious.

But the wikipedia NYC page moderator does not agree to change the dubious 84.1°F to real 84.9°F in New York climate.

NYC Central Park real Average high http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/398827moyennemaximaleanewyork.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:5153:3388:12FB:F2BC (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate content

Under geography of New York at the end of the third paragraph it states -People in New York have tiny micro penises. Big tits on the sexy abbes- Pretty sure this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Te1085 (talk • contribs)

I removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation of Readers' Input

To all of the readers, I would like to say that, as an editor, I appreciate your comments. There are many folks who have tried to update this article with additional information, but other editors revert and delete it, even though it is relevant and would improve the article. So, I just wanted to say that your comments have not gone unnoticed as there are editors involved in this page who revert and delete the positive and relevant contributions of others, without any discussion or follow-up regarding their reasons. I hear you, but also know that my own contributions have not been seriously considered or respected by certain other editors. Thank you! Daniellagreen (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

Correct the broken link to the USDA Economic Research Service New York State Fact Sheet under External Links - "New York State Fact Sheet". The correct link is: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=36&StateName=New%20York#.U8A9GPldUeo

Correct the broken link to USDA Economic Research Service under reference number 49. The correct link is the same as above: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=36&StateName=New%20York#.U8A9GPldUeo

Parker ts (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Scarlettail (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Date format

This 2006-AUG-20 edit established the default date format for accessdates for this article per MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Typo in the first paragraph

There is a typo at the beginning of the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Thanks. I fixed it. Next time, you can fix things, too.--Triskele Jim 17:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
No, he can't. The article is locked against unregistered users. 72.251.70.158 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

State?

Are there really anyone that would expect to find an article about the state of New York when they search for New York? OK, I am aware that there exists such a state, but surely anyone searching for New York would expect to find an article about the city. --Oddeivind (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQ at the top of this page? --В²C ☎ 22:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oddeivind, where's your source for that info?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Source? Where is your source that anyone would expect to find the state? --Oddeivind (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

The article contains a number of grammatical errors, mainly the use of semicolons where a comma is required or vice versa. General readability would also be improved through better sentence structure in certain places. These would be easily fixed if the article could be edited. 66.249.82.173 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through and updated a few grammatical errors Jacquelyntwiki (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

m^2

please change m² to m<sup>2</sup>

Done Cannolis (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

People of New York would like to be known as Yorkens on the Wiki page. 70.251.175.250 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Sir Joseph (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2016

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

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

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

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

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


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

Survey

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

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

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

Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outline of the choice to be made

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

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

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

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

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

Stats on my manual sample: 61 articles had links to New York meaning New York City, 67 meaning New York State and 19 had both kinds, so there were 54% of New York links pointing the wrong way, proving the lack of a primary topic. Massive cleanup required indeed… regardless of the outcome of the move review! — JFG talk 20:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
JFG Sorry to dig up and old topic, but one question - of those 61 links intended for the city, how many were from a publisher's location parameter? (And can anyone point me to where it is discussed how such links in citations benefit readers of an article, and are not an example of WP:OVERLINK?) Antepenultimate (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I have also found a good share of those. It is routine to link publisher cities, and would probably be just as much work, if not more, to unlink those entirely. bd2412 T 00:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not really about to mount a crusade to remove those links (they seem harmless, even if they're just linknoise), but anyone attempting to do a backlink analysis to better understand the primacy of a topic should probably discount or ignore publisher location links. They don't really demonstrate the importance of a topic the same way as links found within article prose, and are likely inflating the "mis-linked New York City" problem. I'm just curious how much of that inflation is occurring. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Antepenultimate: This is an interesting and legitimate question, so I took the trouble to check all the diffs I made on July 4 to correct New York links. Of the 80 articles with links meant for New York City (61 with city links only and 19 with city and state links), 65 had those links in the article text and 15 in citations (either with |location=New York or |place=New York). So, if we exclude the citation links, we still have 65 pages out of 132 pointing the wrong way, i.e. 49%, confirming my measurement that about half of the internal links to New York are meant for the city. — JFG talk 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
JFG, thank you very much for taking the time to check - it's good to know that the pub location links aren't skewing those original results too much. Antepenultimate (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Power outage

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

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

Time to execute

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

London Paris New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense

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

See the (lengthy) discussion above! But (at the risk of repeating myself) New York should redirect to the DAB (unless we can get consensus that it should redirect to New York City, which seems unlikely). Better still, move the DAB to New York (undisambiguated). Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am the one who started the whole discussion move. From what I said in the RM, New York does not have a primary meaning. It could equally mean the state (most US citizens think of the state when they say New York) or it could mean the city (foreign citizens usually think of the city when they hear New York), so I believe that "New York" should point to the dab page and not to the state. There is no primary meaning. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 05:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
User:CookieMonster755, I think the observation about US citizens vs others is so important (although I don't think it's quite that simple) that I've linked to that comment from the MR. [2] Hope that's OK with everyone! Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
New York currently has over 25,000 75,000 incoming links. Those links must be fixed before this link can be changed to something other than a redirect to the longstanding primary topic. bd2412 T 23:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@BD2412: see #Implementation and #Backlinks. They have been warned. wbm1058 (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
More importantly, any such mass changes should be held off on until the move review is completed, lest they all need to be undone. In other words, BD, I'd suggest halting the bot for now. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I am going to limit the bot to cases where the link needs to be retargeted to New York City. Those need to be fixed either way, and they tend to cluster with references to NYC institutions, other major cities, or places of publication. bd2412 T 16:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I agree. Often living in Westchester anyway, New York still generally means the state. Manhattanites and generally city folks have a narrow view of New York, often even excluding the Bronx. It's pretty strange. I wish there were more to go on than personal testimonies; some sort of survey or study, though perhaps that's why such a broad consensus needs to be reached. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ɱ: I thought these Manhattanites and general city folks excluded Staten Island? Oh well. Not many people really pay attention to Stinkin' Island, anyway. Strange. (And there was a secession referendum for Staten Island once, though. Apparently Staten Stinkin' Island didn't like to be part of New York.) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't get a chance to voice my opinion in the RM, but I would have been holheartedly against it. I'm very surprised that the closer came to the conclusion that he did.JOJ Hutton 14:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • All please note the instructions at MR: While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion. [3] (Emphasis as on that page.) If the decision is to relist (as seems likely), then is the time to re-argue the case. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. But I just thought that needed clarifying. MR is often cluttered with arguments that really belong in RM. And we are likely to have a long enough discussion there without straying off-focus. Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is outrageous! Nobody bothered to even inform me about this disastrous move! I wholeheartedly disagree with this move, which has NO consensus. There was nothing wrong with the status quo, which has been there for years. Castncoot (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Castncoot raises a valid point. I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Notify substantial contributors to articles? wbm1058 (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, if I sounded rude. I fully support a relist or overturn to the "no consensus" position. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This article should have just been left as New York, not renamed to redirect to "New York (state)". It is just New York, but someone (he is on this page) decided to edit a lot of articles to redirect to New York from "New York (state)". I disagree with it.—Bde1982 18:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with that? I liked the change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Love the edit summary. [4] Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Bde1982 aka User:BDE1982, it would be helpful to say why you think this.
It would also be helpful to sign in the usual four-tilde way. You've been here a while [5] so I'm a bit surprised you haven't got the hang of it yet... if I can help, drop me a line on my talk page. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Andrewa, I no longer edit under my BDE1982 profile. That was an alternate. This one, bde1982, is the one I used in the beginning and I will use it from now on.—Bde1982 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Foreshadowing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that's a reasonable approach.

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

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

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

That last paragraph neatly sums up what I was about to write. If someone says they're in New York, I wouldn't start looking in Albany. Certes (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Certes: See WP:NWFCTM (a subsection of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Antepenultimate (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree that WP:NWFCTM is relevant, in fact I think that both sides of this discussion should reread it carefully.
But without wanting to put words into User:Certes' mouth, User:Antepenultimate, I took that to mean that neither would many others think it might mean Albany. And that's a valid point, if true, under the usage criterion. And I think it is true. Do you? Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Geesh. We're talking about 54,000+ square miles. If I wanted to find this person, I would first ask where in New York they were, before I started wandering aimlessly. And, no, I wouldn't assume they were in the city unless there was some context in our conversation from which to make that assumption. wbm1058 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm going on a 50 mile backpacking trip for my holiday. Oh, where are you backpacking? In New York. Great. Sounds like fun.
I'm going to see the Reds playing on the road next month. Where? In New York. Great. Mets or Yankees?
I'm editing the Wikipedia article about New York. Awesome. Which one? wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems again to be a dialect difference. If I said to someone "I'm going to visit my cousin who lives in New York" with their having no previous knowledge of where my (hypothetical) cousin lives, I would expect them to understand New York city. In some cases, obviously from this discussion, I would be wrong. Language is like that. The question is, what is the common understanding? Is it New York City, or New York State, or isn't there one?
I can see arguments both ways as to whether there is one. But if there is a primary meaning, I can see no evidence at all that it's New York state. That being so, I can see many procedural arguments that can and do delay the decision to move the New York State article away from the (precious) name New York.
But unless it's the primary meaning, it shouldn't be there. Should it? Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
If you were an Upstate resident speaking to a fellow Upstate resident in someplace Upstate, then "I'm going to visit my cousin who lives in New York" would likely be understood to mean the city, but even then, you would be more likely to say "New York City" or "the city" I think. Because if it were somewhere else (Rochester, Utica) you would say so. Out of state, there is an intuitive need to be more specific; you would be more likely to say "New York City" or "Upstate New York", or "Jamestown, New York".
Again, context matters. If you're talking backpacking, "New York" means Upstate (think Adirondacks, Catskills, Taconics)... Who won New York's electoral votes? That's about entire state. New York has a nice subway system. Now we mean the city. So the big question is, in the context of an encyclopedia, what do you expect the scope of the article titled New York to be? I think the majority of New York residents would say, the (entire) state. I understand that foreigners have different expectations in this regard. Most, if not all, of the 50 states have disambiguation pages (I was a bit surprised to find that to be the case). We don't put Michigan at Michigan (state)... I'm a bit surprised to see that's not a red link, though there is a Michigan (disambiguation) page. I could imagine some Michigan residents getting a little upset to see that "(state)" "defacing" the title... New Yorkers should be more understanding, but some of that emotion seems to be in play here. Hmm, Victoria (Australia), not Victoria (state), it seems like they're saying that In Australia, the state is the primary topic for Victoria, not the queen or some girl's name. New York (New York), New York (United States), lol. wbm1058 (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Which suggests to me that in this case there may be no primary meaning. But it doesn't lend one shred of credence to the claim that the primary meaning is New York State. Does it? Have I missed something? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You ask what an encyclopedia should have at that title... well Britannica has no article titled New York. I guess that's their equivalent of a dab page - when you query it you just get search results including New York (state, United States) and New York City (New York, United States). [6]  — Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I made this observation earlier, back in § London Paris New York, "it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us." Note that the New York City article has a subtitle "New York, United States" which indicates where New York City is. And the article about the state. which is at the Primary Topic title New York, has a subtitle "State, United States" which tells us what and where it is. This is a grey zone; observe that the URL does include "state" in lower case: www.britannica.com/place/New-York-state – Frankly Britannica handles this more elegantly than our current software allows us to. wbm1058 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
They actually have nothing sitting at https://www.britannica.com/place/New-York – this may be a way to ensure that their editors get it right (the city is at https://www.britannica.com/place/New-York-City) – wbm1058 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, Ireland in Britannica is about the country, and they don't put a subtitle on that article, so they feel no need to have a subtitle like (Country, Ireland) to say what and where it is. As far as I can tell, they do not have a separate article about the island itself, just an article on Northern Ireland. And it seems that all searches land you on the search results page. So the fact that searching New York didn't go directly to the article about the state should not be interpreted to mean that Britannica doesn't consider it a "primary topic". They just may not have such a construct in the same way that we do. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Especially that there's no article on the island or Ireland. Maybe they figure the overlap between that and the Republic article is enough not to justify.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I apologise for making a vague and flippant remark before going away for a week, though it has produced a useful discussion. Yes, taken literally, what I wrote is irrelevant per WP:NWFCTM. I meant to imply that State is not much more likely than City to be the topic sought when a reader searches for New York, so shouldn't be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is City much more likely? From other responses, I get the impression "yes, except for readers in the USA", so the decision between a redirect to New York City and a dab page seems marginal to me. (I am British, with no connection to New York city or state.) Certes (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Well said... but what matters now is presenting evidence of this when the new RM opens on Friday. (And don't jump the gun, the admin who set it up has enough to do as is.) Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Refocus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR result

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

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

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

Move review closure

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

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

I am concerned

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

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

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

Requested move 19 July 2016

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_(state)/Archive_5&oldid=1229458138"