This is an archive of past discussions about New York (state). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user Castncoot is a world-class vandal and this user considers that reliable information about religion should not be included in the article.
Information about the religion has no problem being added in good articles in wikipedia such as Texas. Why is the article about the State of New York banned for religion?.
Then the article about religion in the United States should also be eliminated. According to the ignorant users information about religion should be banned in all the articles of all the States of United States.
The 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Survey showed the religious makeup of the state was as follows:
Support inclusion. While I emphatically do not support the OPs description of Castncoot as a "world-class vandal" in this matter (in fact, they certainly aren't, it's just a content dispute), I do think that this information is a vast improvement over the current offerings for the state's religions, which list only the arbitrary 'top four' religions with simple counts of practitioners. Castncoot reverted the first instance with an edit summary stating subdividing into "Christian vs Non-Christian" is oversimplification, must then subdivide Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism as well - which, well, the table does exactly that. If you feel strongly about getting rid of the higher-level divisions (Christian, Non-Christian, Unaffiliated, Don't know) then go ahead and do that, it's an easy edit. This information has greater depth and is from a more recent source than the previous offering, which is very sparse in comparison. The later accusations of WP:POV in edit summaries are particularly unfounded, this is quite neutral in presentation. In any case, as of this comment, you're both at the limit of WP:3RR (sorry, Castncoot just went to the fourth revert while I was typing this - seriously, why) so perhaps just accept that the WP:WRONGVERSION is up until we can talk about this for a bit. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC) I swear I can usually count - reversion count corrected, with apologies, Antepenultimate (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Antepenultimate, I did not go to the fourth revert. That was User:Oknazevad who did the good deed there. I also want to respectfully point out that you are incorrect about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism being subdivided into their own various denominations. As you see above, they clearly are not. This can't be done simply for one religion and not the others. That is WP:UNDUE. Castncoot (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Castncoot, and my sincere apologies, I definitely mis-counted there. I've struck through the erroneous phrase, late though it may be. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I disagree somewhat but it's a fine line, I suppose the breakdown of Christian denominations makes sense here, given the significant numbers contained within each denomination. Whereas in a country with a preponderance of non-Christian religions, it would make sense to lump Christians and break down other major faiths that have significant participation. That's just an opinion, of course, and I would certainly support inclusion of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed Judaism, etc. if the data is available, though it seems to be a limitation of how the survey was conducted. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ante, no offense taken and no worries. It's precisely that limitation of the survey that makes it a deal-breaker for me, simply because it doesn't do due justice to the other religions in New York (the title of this article), and in the process actually misguides the reader that the other religions in New York can simply be lumped together like that. Jewry in New York constitutes a significant 7% representation, whereas in the U.S. as a whole it's much less, and your argument could potentially carry a more acceptable representation for the U.S. as a whole, which is how Pew likely decided upon what data to investigate in the first place. However, this limitation really does become an objectionable issue in the New York article. Obviously Pew itself is a reliable source, that was never the issue for me. We also currently already have the religion bar graph for New York that gives the reader a good idea of the proportional breakdown of the major religions. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Support inclusion. This graph seems to have about the right level of detail and be properly sourced. Castncoot was taking part in the accepted bold-revert-discuss process, so accusations of vandalism are unfair and unhelpful. Certes (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Support inclusion. Religious breakdowns are appropriate for this article if sourced correctly and they are about the state and not the city, county, or metropolitan area. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Support inclusion. To the best of my knowledge, the Pew Research Center is a reliable source. The data in this chart seems more useful than the one currently in the article. "Christian" is too broad a category for religion data in the U.S. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Support. Some reservations about the breakdowns, but Pew is usually considered a reliable source. I only reverted to force discussion and end the edit war. oknazevad (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC) PS, I do think the hysterics and bad faith accusation of vandalism deserves a trouting, but that's just me. oknazevad (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Support in concept but Oppose in application: I have no problem with the Pew source or the table in concept. I do indeed have a problem with the subdivision of only one religion into various denominations when the other religions also have similarly intricate denominational subdivisions, and I do also oppose having categories called "Non-Christian faiths" or "Other Non-Christian faiths", for the same WP:UNDUE reason. For example, Judaism is subdivided into Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed classes, and within these classes are even more complex sects. Are these intricacies reflected in this table? No, they are not, but one looking at this table would be misguided as such. Obviously Pew is a RS, but that is not at all the issue which I've brought up here. The other thing is that we already have a religion bar chart there. So why do we need another, duplicative chart? Castncoot (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Support for the time being. I think the breakdown from Christian to Catholic, Protestant, and Other is an obvious one to make. It has nothing to do with favoritism toward any one religion and everything to do with the fact that these are the largest religious groups in the state. I would similarly expect an article on a majority Muslim country to break down Muslims into Sunnis and Shi'ites at the very least but not break down Christians. I don't see a need to break down Protestants further or to list individual Christian sects with 1% or less of the population, so in an ideal world, we'd condense that a bit. This table is better than no table, though. I have to oppose, on the other hand, referring to Castncoot as a "world-class vandal". If I weren't WP:INVOLVED on this page, I would have considered blocking for that blatant personal attack. We don't need further escalation here. ~ Rob13Talk17:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe obvious to you, but not to many others, who would instead see it as blatantly WP:UNDUE. This is not an article about the United States, (nor any other country), but New York. Let's look at this carefully. Christianity has a 60% (as opposed to 98%, for example) representation, while Unaffiliated has a significant 27%(!) representation (quite a large number). Judaism has a highly significant 7% representation as well. I feel strongly that if this table is placed, then it needs to be heavily edited. There is no place for the term "Non-Christian faiths" or "Other Non-Christian faiths". Maybe it should read "Non-Christian/Unaffiliated/Jewish faiths" or "Other Non-Christian/Unaffiliated/Jewish faiths". Do you see my point? Where does it end? Why not just maintain the bar graph that is already there, but in text format, describe the breakdown of Christianity and any other religion into its respective denominations as the information is or becomes available, and reference it with the appropriate citation? That seems more reasonable and far less WP:UNDUE, because text placement generally carries less burden to provide comprehensive information and is more accommodating to an "add along as you get more citable information available" approach. By the way, although I appreciate everybody vouching for me as not being a "world-class vandal", I'm still laughing about that comment rather than being much bothered by it, lol! Castncoot (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Castncoot: You are questioning here the way Pew conducted their survey; perhaps you would have split religious affiliations differently but that would be your WP:OR. We must either follow the source we have or find a better one. And this source is more recent and detailed than the previous information, hence my support for inclusion as presented. — JFGtalk23:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Support inclusion as presented – This table is a clear and representative summary of religious affiliations (or lack thereof) in the New York (state) population. Admonish the OP for incivility towards Castncoot: he may be opinionated at best and hyperbolic at worst, far far away from vandal territory. (We love you, Castie…) — JFGtalk23:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your humorous, good-faith description of me, JFG :). Again, to re-emphasize, I don't have any problem with Pew as a reliable source, and I don't have a problem with Pew's table as designed macroscopically for the U.S. as a whole, which was Pew's likely premise when choosing its categorization. The problem is that this particular table's applicability (as is) breaks down into WP:UNDUE territory for the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia when it is applied toward certain subnational entities such as New York, which has very different demographics from the U.S. as a whole, just as Greater London (pardon me if that's not the best analogy) has very different demographics from the UK as a whole. Remember that Pew didn't design this table with Wikipedia in mind. So it's really not a "clear and representative summary of religious affiliations (or lack thereof) in the New York (state) population", because if it were, it would have at minimum included a subdivisional demographic breakdown for New York's prominent Jewish population into Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed designations. Without even that, the table gives the unwitting reader an inaccurate view of religious affiliations in New York. If Christianity claimed 98% of adherents in a given state, as it would in a number of other states in the U.S., then I could go along with the logic of including the terms "Non-Christian faiths" and "Other Non-Christian faiths" on that state's Wikipedia page. But the case is nearly diametrically opposite for New York, the subject of this article. I would rather wait for a more accurate representation to materialize (or edit the table accordingly) than sacrifice representative accuracy for the sake of "more detail" – which is not necessarily "better", and can actually bring about just the opposite. Castncoot (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
We've heard your point loud and clear, Castncoot; repetitive persistence is another of your prominent qualities… Now, this table is long enough. Rather than subdividing the Jewish denominations (for which we have no data), perhaps we should lump the lower-than-2% Christian subgroups together with "Other Christian" which would then reach 3%, and call it a day. — JFGtalk03:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, now we're getting somewhere! Who ever thought you and I could agree on something, JFG? :) I'm OK with your suggestion, provided we also eliminate the term "Non-Christian faiths" (which is totally unnecessary) and replace the term "Other Non-Christian faiths" with the term "Other faiths". Castncoot (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Faith works miracles! (no matter which religion) Note it's the second time we agree; no doubt we're on a mission from God. I also agree that the "non-christian" labels are useless clutter. Given the overwhelming consensus to include, I think our fellow editors above won't object if you go ahead and copy your draft into the article now. How refreshing to discuss something else than the-state-that-mustn't-be-renamed… — JFGtalk03:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Love your puns, JFG, and yes, I do remember the other occasion when we reached agreement – and yes, I will go ahead and insert the chart, once an admin lifts the block collectively on us non-admins. Castncoot (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. I don't know why my page still has a yellow lock on it, but I am free to edit it, and will do so. Castncoot (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This edit request to New York has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The religion graph, currently being discussed in talk, is misplaced in the language section. Please move the {{bar}} template (search for "bar box|title=Religion") down a few lines to below the "Religion" subheader.
Certes (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
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.
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. bd2412T23:00, 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.
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.
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 29 October 2016. The result of the move review was "endorsement of the RM's outcome (whether it's a close or non-close).".
Revived this section from the archives until the move review is concluded. Please do not restart a thread here at this time. Walls of bikeshedding passionate discussion can be read here, here and there to get entertained on rainy days. — JFGtalk14:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Move review has closed as endorsed, which means No consensus, so this section may be re-archived at any time. This is a good opportunity to thank all participants for a lively and stimulating discussion. Let's all return next year and continue to work toward a consensus! It's a pleasure discussing this subject with all of you! Paineu/c16:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
See also WP:IG and MOS:IMAGES. I should hope this could finally become a GA, but literally all of the above image's worth needs to be completely redone or removed, and that's just a start. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)03:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I restored this longstanding image, which aptly represents the coastal beaches of Long Island, a region comprising 40% of the state's population, or nearly 8 million people. New York is renowned as a constellation of different regions. Before simply deleting a longstanding image like that, please find a suitable replacement first. Also, unfortunately, the move disputes are not done for now. Wishful thinking which I wish were true. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Show me where the dispute is still ongoing? Also longstanding means nothing, because barely any images have been touched in this article, probably partially over page ownership concerns, which appear evident. I also frankly don't care that Long Island has a bunch of people; the gallery is ridiculously big, and just a bunch of beach and water says nothing, and shows nothing worthwhile. We've got to cut this stuff down. People can look at the Long Island article for LI photos; Albany, NY article for Albany photos; Niagara Falls article for Niagara photos. NY is so big we can't take photos of everything 'cool' and stick it here. Sub-articles exist for many very good reasons. Quit the ownership and let's start overhauling this page to make it GA- or FA-worthy. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)03:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh goodness, if I had to find all of the different pages the movement lobbying for a move has been splattered onto, I'd be here forever. Another unfortunate attempt is closely around the corner, if you haven't seen. Ownership? Far from it. In any case, can you please show me how many other U.S. state articles have GA or FA status? Very few, at most. This already is a high quality article, and the images don't look anything inappropriate. Why have any photos, with your logic? You can't simply ignore a region with 8 million people and with hundreds of miles of oceanic coastline. A picture is appropriate when it tells the reader an accurate story. New York is an extremely diverse collage of mountains, ocean, lakes, rivers, and city, in a relatively compact area compared to some Western states, and this story needs to be told in unison. Otherwise, the tale is incomplete and remiss. Castncoot (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I lived in California and New York each for many years, and even as the biggest "Western state" (if you're not counting Alaska), it's just as if not more geographically diverse. You haven't factually disproven my statement that the move discussions have subsided, nor do you provide a compelling argument against the three policies/guidelines I've linked that strongly discourage such a huge array of images like the article currently has. If there are few or no state GAs or FAs, all the more reason for us to create one, and I'm sure you'd be happy for New York to be first. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)04:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
On another note, it seems we'll never convince each other; I propose an RfC, or if you'd like something more informal we could invite others to participate here, perhaps even the local Wikimedia chapter? ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)04:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
None of your links contradict anything in this article or anything I've said. I'll have to search for one particular comment by one editor who said (paraphrasing), "see you back here next year". Well, it's already late November. On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure where your dire sense of urgency stems. Feel free to invite whoever you want, Wikipedia should be freely open to everyone to comment, although topic experience is appreciated. In all honesty, I think the discussion already is open without any active intervention. WP:NOTBROKEN. Castncoot (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason I removed it was because the image didn't fit in among the other panorama images. And yes there are way too many images here. Heck, the page takes a lot of time to load. Castncoot, I would like to understand your argument. Are you saying that the number of images in the article is alright as of this version? That there are absolutely no problems with having these many images? And I don't understand what you are trying to imply when you say "In any case, can you please show me how many other U.S. state articles have GA or FA status? Very few, at most. This already is a high quality article, and the images don't look anything inappropriate.". I personally find the argument that just because other state articles are not an FA and GA, so this one shouldn't be either, a WP:SEWAGE analogy. I would be glad to hear your thoughts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the move discussion is more on pause than finished - whichever way you cook it there was "no consensus", never a "consensus not to move", which means we can and will revisit the topic sooner or later. However, this discussion here is not affected by that. This article needs to be polished whether it's located at New York or New York (state), and I agree with User:Ɱ that the view depicted on the right is not encyclopedic. We are not here to provide a full beautiful gallery of everything in the state, there are other venues such as commons or Flickr for that. Encyclopedia articles should include a few images, one or two per section in thumb format to illustrate the section in question, but not be lined on both sides with thumbs and with six panoramas as well. Take a look at Rwanda... (an FA I had a hand in writing!)... of course there are numerous beautiful spots in Rwanda that could be shown in large images in the article, but that's not the correct thing to do. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The unique problem that others are not accounting for here (or perhaps realizing) is that New York is uniquely diverse in a relatively small space as compared to other U.S. states. (By the way, Rwanda is not even located on an ocean, so the discussion goes nowhere with that topic.) So either include all or include none of the images. But by selecting certain images, there is a WP:UNDUE process at work here. Do other coastal U.S. state articles simply ignore their oceanic coastlines? Of course not. One thing is for sure - the reader of this article will have a more accurate (i.e., better) picture of what New York constitutes than perhaps of other states from their articles - and that, Lemongirl942, is what I meant by my statement. Let's never forget, more than anything else, that we are here to educate the reader, not to satisfy anyone's rote requirements. Castncoot (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Alanscottwalker tends to come up with some brilliant ideas at the last minute. The intent and spirit of WP:NOTGALLERY is to discourage a mindless display of pictures. What we have here, on the other hand, is a thoughtful, intelligent caption characterizing pertinent features of each image. Castncoot (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I would be kind-of okay with a panorama collapse (it might not be an FA-worthy fix but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it), however the amount of images on the left and right need to be cut down, and I'm pretty sure the weather boxes can be combined to just be one box. There are large swaths of empty white space below this section that should be re-adjusted too, if possible. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)19:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I played around with a few collapsing templates, but haven't had any luck; the wide images don't seem to work well in these collapse templates. Chief among my problems is that some of these templates don't even work on the mainspace because the MOS actually condemns auto-collapsing content on the mainspace, due to poor accessibility. It's another dilemma, though perhaps ignorable, if this content is seen as non-essential for readers and/or the MOS as a guideline we can overlook for the sake of compromise here? ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)19:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I guess I might be somewhat OK with combining the weather boxes into one. We could also keep the default to show rather than collapse, that would avoid any MOS conflict. Castncoot (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No way on earth are we having the default look like the screenshot on the right. Auto-collapsing or major cuts/reworking, it's the only way. I'll take a stab at the weather boxes soonish. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)20:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No need to get testy, as I myself said shortly above, auto-collapsing is a brilliant idea. But as an alternative for whatever reason, I don't mind having an optional collapse with the default setting being to show. Castncoot (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Just before posting the above I made a final two edits, to remove someone's pretty sunset pic that they randomly placed in the sports section; and to move the stadium photo in its place. Why'd you revert that? ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)00:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Because you inadvertently left a Downstate bias with your edits. Don't mistake me, I think you've done a fantastic job overall. Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
(←) You should know I'm not trying to add bias, and I'm from a part of NY that's oft considered both upstate and downstate. I think you'll agree with me a sunset pic doesn't belong in the sports section. I disagree with your Brooklyn Bridge reversion as it's likely the most iconic bridge in the state, but I could replace it with the Mid-Hudson or Tappan Zee bridges, which receive much higher traffic volumes and are bigger and more iconic than the old photo; more representative of the significant transportation infrastructure of New York. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)00:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
ALSO, 5 of the 6 photos in the Religion section have been of NYC, for years. Looks like someone lazily copy-pasted it over from the NYC article. Care to remove/swap out these? ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)00:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Also the Brooklyn Bridge is barely represented on the NYC article. Its only photo is the tiny one in the corner of the infobox montage, and it doesn't even get a paragraph of information; like 2 short sentences. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)00:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Look, I already said you've done a great job. How many times do you need me to repeat that? Nobody's perfect though, including me of course. You've said you're from Westchester, which is technically Downstate; but if you read carefully, I said that your edits left an inadevertent Downstate bias. Downstate has two-thirds of the population and at least two-thirds (and perhaps five-sixths) of the notability of the State's human dimension, that is correct, and the distribution of human-influenced pics should reflect this – but less so with geographically-oriented images, including physical features and perhaps roads. As far as the Brooklyn Bridge is concerned, should the State article mention it any more prominently than the City article? I think not. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, canoeing is just as legitimate a sport as the more televised sports, such as football, baseball, or tennis, which lend a more decidedly Downstate bias. Good to display at least one image of such an outdoor recreational sport, especially from Upstate. And if there happens to be a sunset accompanying it, nothing wrong with that. Castncoot (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Complements are nice and I'm appreciative; I just didn't understand your reasoning. What do you think of my other two bridge suggestions? I should note almost everyone in NYC considers Westchester upstate, but there's no clear definition really. I'm confused how you can argue the Brooklyn Bridge can't have some coverage here but less than in the NYC article, but also it can't have more coverage than in the NYC article. Can we use one of the other, bigger, more significant bridges? It seems odd to say that the big powerful state of NY's most representative bridge is a tiny one upstate so short I can't even find how long it is... (looks like 200ft on Google Maps, compare to the Verrazano at a whopping 13,700 feet or TZB at 16,013). As for the 'sunset in the sports section', though I like canoeing it's not a great photo for it nor a big sport in New York, even upstate. And baseball is big in much of New York, you know the hall of fame is in Cooperstown. I bet rock/mountain climbing are among the most popular in the Catskills and Adirondacks. Anyway, I'd like to make this article as nice as we can, sorry if it's dragging on. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)01:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there's plenty of baseball already mentioned in the article, but other sports more identified with in the far reaches of Upstate should also be demonstrated. I doubt that someone in Plattsburgh is going to identify with the Yankees or with Cooperstown, but they may indeed identify significantly with canoeing. I don't mind a compromise at this point - I'd like to keep the canoeing picture, but I don't mind switching the Thaddeus Kosciusko Bridge to say, the Tappan Zee Bridge (and then its replacement, once completed)? Castncoot (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! I like this version. Speaking as someone who doesn't know a lot about New York, the older version was distracting to read (particularly with the "statescape" section). The current version loads faster and is easier to read. Btw, is there a way to re-position the images near the economy section? For example, the images about the gay pride parade are on the right of the economy section. I tried to fix, but I wasn't able to. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Everything got pushed down there because of that huge religion table. I didn't really want that there without more text too; the religion section barely has a paragraph, and is loaded with images and that table. Ideally we'd add more text, otherwise the only option I see is to cut down the images and shrink the table a bit, or do nothing. It's the only encroaching section left now, far better than what we had before. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)06:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 5 external links on New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
@Johannes Hals:Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It's unclear what you are requesting or suggesting. If you just want the text to be bigger in general, that will probably not be changed, but your web browser should have a zoom function for that purpose. If there is a specific part of the article which you find problematic, please clearly identify it. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am new to Wikipedia and do not know how to edit pages. Although the New York page is great, I found a little mistake in the Spoken Languages section where the language spoken by Indians is mentioned as Indian and not Hindi. Hindi is the Indian contemporary version of Sanskrit, a language that was spoken in some parts of South East Asia as well.
Since there is no such language as Indian, I would be delighted to correct it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LassiKaur (talk • contribs) 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I took a look at the source from the United States Census and it turns out that the 1.9% number is not applicable to Hindi, but to all Indian languages: Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu, and "other Indic languages". I have instead revised the infobox to say "Indian languages". Thanks for helping to improve this article. —KuyaBriBriTalk15:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
False alarm
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
@Andrewa: Oops! Thought we were ready to hit the start line . BTW Who is User:Andrew? Is that your alternative account, or did you create that page in the userspace the wrong user? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Ooops... now that might really confuse the bot! My typo, fixed now by a bold move to my user space where it belongs... fortunately that account hasn't been used for many years and was never really active, although another more active user also used the name previously but moved to a new account name. So we might leave the move-generated redirects from that page and its talk for now, rather than testing the bot in an even lass likely set of circumstances. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: unlike the false alarm in the section above, this is a real move request. I encourage everyone involved with this page to go over to Talk:New York (disambiguation), read the request, and give their opinions. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to proceed with steps 2 and 3 of the proposal, including replacing (correct) links to New York with piped links to New York (state). This is a reasonable and limited exception to WP:NOTBROKEN given the frequency of incorrect links and the difficulty of identifying them without this approach. The benefit to the encyclopedia and its readers of correcting erroneous links clearly outweighs any minor detriments of inserting the redirect. Note that this consensus does not alter the obligations of editors, including bot operators, to verify that the article about the State is indeed the intended target of the link before editing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
There are some pages that will always present problems of this nature. For example, Supreme court, Mouse, and Apple are all the correct primary topics for those terms, but frequently draw errant links intending other popular topics. For an article with 75,000 incoming links, it is a major operation to find the clearly wrong ones, and several editors might end up retreading the same ground in the course of doing this. I therefore propose the following rather radical solution:
Keep the page name as is for now (until there is a clear consensus to move it); but:
Change all existing links from other articles intended to point to the page so that they pipe through New York (state) (e.g. "Chuck Schumer is a Senator from [[New York (state)|New York]]"); most of these can be done by a bot.
Once the clearly intentional links have been sorted out that way, fix all the remaining links that intend New York City (or any other meaning).
Once all the links intending another target have been fixed, restore all the intentional links to point directly to New York.
After this operation is complete, set up a weekly bot report of all new links created pointing to New York; a bot can fix obvious cases ("New York City"), and an editor can go over the rest. Remember, it took us 15 years to accumulate the existing 75,000 links, which comes to only about 100 links per week. A bot report can provide a line or two of context before and after the link itself so that the editor need not look at the actual article to determine which ones intend the city.
Before anyone gets up in arms over the amount of work involved in the above proposal, I volunteer to do it all myself, and to get it done by the end of September. I need a clear consensus to go forward with a project like this so that I don't get a lot of WP:NOTBROKEN complaints while initially piping the links. bd2412T18:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I second the cleanup operation, although I don't understand the purpose of piping links through (state) and recovering the original direct link afterwards. Is it to keep track of which links have been processed? If so, I would remove step 4 in the process - just leave the links through the redirect forever. WP:NOTBROKEN actually supports having a redirect and not making it direct, and links like [[New York (state)|New York]] will always remain unambiguous to readers who hover to read the target URL and/or read the navigation popup; in fact this kind of piping through the parenthetical disambiguation is commonly done in disambiguation discussions when a topic is placed as a primary topic. Diego (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Diego just change the existing links to [[New York (state)]] or [[New York (state)|New York]] for the time being. Also the examples you've given could use these ideas too, but lets see how this goes first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've actually done this a bit with Supreme court - people often link to the redirect Supreme Court when they mean a specific court (usually the U.S. Supreme Court); when they mean the generic sense, I pipe it through the lowercase direct link to make it clear that the link has been checked. I have no objection to leaving the link piped, though I worry that editors will tend to try to "fix" it. bd2412T19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic aside about supreme courts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Off-topic) I have a question for both of you... I live in New South Wales, and if I wikilink to supreme court or Supreme Court I get to the same article, and it doesn't mention the Supreme Court of New South Wales in any way, not even by any of the hatnotes, not even indirectly. As this is the court most often cropping up in local newspapers (and by a long way, one of its divisions tries all major criminal cases, for example), that's a shocking omission IMO, and I'm not quite sure how to fix it. Supreme Court is perhaps a misnomer in this instance, as further appeals are very common in one of its divisions and in theory possible in all of them, but that's what it's called hereabouts, and in NSW it is in a sense supreme, as after you go through all of its applicable divisions you then go outside of NSW... but to a supreme court that is not a Supreme Court in name but a High Court instead. TIA Andrewa (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Done thank you. I'd now like to hat this as reason=off-topic discussion but am involved... would someone else like to, or does anyone mind if I do it? Andrewa (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm always in favour of cleaning up, especially when someone volunteers! We might want to think about what to do with content like The Bronx is in [[New York]] where either the city or state meaning is valid. I'd go for the more specific The Bronx is in [[New York City]], with the word City displayed to make it obvious where the link goes, but I can see reasons for treating the text in other ways. Of course, any decision would be a guideline to be varied when appropriate rather than a mandatory rule. Certes (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. If we just change the links to pipe through, and leave them that way for the time being, then there will be no need for a report at all, because we will clearly see new links being made to the base page name. bd2412T12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Normally that is the case, but normally an article will not have several thousand incorrectly targeted links mixed in with tens of thousands of correctly targeted links. If you can provide a better way to find and fix the incorrect links, you are more than welcome to do it. bd2412T03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree otherwise we will have to go through all 10,000 links every once in awhile to see if they are properly disambiguated between "New York State" and "New York City". Clever idea. We might even leave a message there. [[New York State|New York]]<!--Please leave the link as is to insure it remains properly disambiguated-->. We should always use "New York City" for the city. I find about 1 in 10 new links improperly disambiguated in biographies, sometimes it takes a little research to find out which is correct by looking at primary sources like the draft registration or the death index. We should also make an effort at "New York City" to change it to "Manhattan, New York City" you do not want to leave doubt that someone was born on the "Bronx, New York City" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Strong support – @BD2412: As we noted in the original discussion, incoming links must be fixed irrespective of the page title. Your suggestion, if limited to steps 1–3, in effect brings us the possibility to detect ambiguous links to New York automatically. It won't bring the ambiguity to editors' attention as they save their work (only making "New York" a dab page would achieve this) but newly-created links can be patrolled and managed with minimal effort. After the initial robot pass, we shall need a rather large but one-shot manual effort to assess ambiguities. Further patterns may emerge during that work and be added to bot-detected issues. May I suggest that we move the practical discussion on implementation progress to the page I had planned for this purpose? An extra benefit of this work is that we will have even clearer usage statistics for both meanings of "New York" within the Wikipedia corpus. — JFGtalk10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I've run across your bot a couple of times now, and while what it is doing is clearly an improvement, the result is still not what I'd call satisfactory. The problem is when someone has written for example "Rochester, New York" and you corrected it to "Rochester, New York." The correct fix per WP:SEAOFBLUE is "Rochester, New York." I realize it's not your job or within the scope of this project to fix these. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I am also unclear if you are going to go back next and cleanup your cleanup. You are leaving as of now links to a redirect in articles ?? If I click on New York at Arthur K. Shapiro, it is a redirect. That is not a good thing. Shall I revert, or are you going to fix that once you finish your first run through? Thanks for the work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
My plan for the moment is to do the initial cleanup and then see whether the rate of accumulation of new incorrect links is too high to conveniently address even after the links are restored to the base page name. At that point, I will offer my opinion, and it will be up to the consensus of the community as to how to proceed. bd2412T14:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not clear :) Will the current article New York be changed to New York (state) eventually? If not, the old link at Arthur K. Shapiro was correct. If yes, I am assuming the now-incorrect redirect will go away once you finish ? To avoid having others show up here with the same confusion/question, you might want to add something to your edit summary indicating this is a first pass, the rest will be completed ? Others seeing an incorrect change to an article may just revert ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
No, the intention of this maneuver is to specifically target incorrect links and has no bearing whatsoever on the name of the article. If I'm misinterpreting that point, then I would oppose this maneuver. Castncoot (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is no plan to move the article to New York (state) at present as far as I know, although we will probably revisit this in a year or two, and at that point common sense might prevail and it could be moved. In the meantime the links could be reverted, but I woudln't have thought it is essential or pressing. Links to redirects are not forbidden or discouraged as far as I'm aware, and don't do any real harm for readers. — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The piped link through a redirect is not incorrect, per WP:NOTBROKEN. And as I mentioned somewhere above, direct links to a primary topic are commonly changed so that they go through the redirect, to protect them from future title changes and/or to improve finding the primary topic through search. So, the old link was correct, but the new one is better :-) Diego (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely ridiculous! There is no sane reason to make a wholesale change of wikilinks so that they end up as redirects. I despise redirects. Despite whoever wrote WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects are sloppy and ugly. NOTBROKEN should also mention that if a non-redirect is working, it shouldn't be messed with. Don't break something to fix something else. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
There can be and are many legitimate contexts where linking through a redirect is desirable and positive — for one example of many, there are occasionally contexts where a disambiguation page is actually the desired link topic (my canonical go-to example, is Sault Ste. Marie, since there are some occasions when a distinction between the one in Ontario vs. the one in Michigan is either unclear or entirely irrelevant to the context of the link) — but since bots will flag direct links to dab pages as things that need to be fixed, linking to it through a redirect has the benefit of preventing that particular link from showing up on the cleanup list. A needed cleanup project like this, where we need to make an effort to sort out links that are going to the intended topic from links which need to be repaired, is another example of where it's useful — this project will have the benefit of vastly reducing the number of links that actually have to be manually inspected, as well as marking the ones that have been inspected so that the next person who comes along wanting to help out doesn't keep tilling the same ground that's already been tilled. You don't have to like redirects, but WP:NOTBROKEN is correct: linking through a redirect still gets you to the right place, if done correctly (i.e. piped rather than leaving the disambiguator visible in the body text) it's invisible to the end reader, there can be and are reasons why it's useful, and there's little to no technical or user benefit in going out of your way to convert a link-through-redirect into a link-through-direct-title just because of some imaginary "avoid redirects" rule. You're free to have your own opinions, sure, but they don't trump Wikipedia policy which says that linking through a redirect is not a problem. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Graham's hierarchy of disagreement Came across this bizarre effort at Henry DeWolf Smyth and wanted to add my voice to those contesting it. Piping a link to a redirect to that same link is of course ridiculous, as the original link was WP:NOTBROKEN. I would, of course, support an effort to identify and fix New Yorks that ought to be New York Citys. Getting there from the present effort would require only—gasp—reading the surrounding context before tinkering with something. I can't believe that the requisite modicum of literacy is too great an ask. I must also dispute the (mis)conception of consensus advanced here and elsewhere by leader of this effort. Consensus measured by a handful of editors' opinions here does not suffice to counter "a lot of WP:NOTBROKEN complaints" dispersed throughout the encyclopedia. And indeed, editors keep showing up here to lodge their disagreement, and when that happens you no longer have even the meager, insufficient consensus you keep citing (circularly) as the reason this is a good idea. Lagrange61301:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Lagrange613:TenEleven editors in this discussion have expressed support this effort: myself (User:BD2412), User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), User:Diego Moya, User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:Andrewa, User:Certes, User:Castncoot, User:JFG, User:Kendall-K1, User:Bearcat, and User:Andrew Gray. Prior to your comment, there has been precisely one objection to the links, by User:Nricardo. It is therefore grammatically incorrect for you to say that you want to add your voice to "those" contesting it, because a single objector does not constitute a "those". A consensus of ten to two is conclusive. This would be so even if it were a substantive editing dispute; in this case, for a maintenance task that the reader does not even see, it is overwhelming. For the record, by the way, there have been virtually noWP:NOTBROKEN complaints, because editors generally understand the importance of carrying out this project. The reason that it is necessary to fix all the links is so that each editor working on this project does not waste time revisiting the same false positives. No amount of literacy will prevent an editor from visiting a previously unaddressed page to assess whether it needs fixing. bd2412T01:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Nope, Pppery and Pierre cb object, and SandyGeorgia is far from supportive. I get that you're not interested in the perspective of people who disagree with you, but at least acknowledge their existence. Even were it 10–2 instead of 10–4 or 10–5, again, that wouldn't give you some sort of portable consensus that would allow you to overrule WP:BRD when encountering others who don't want this foolishness elsewhere in the encyclopedia. As to process, it would easy enough to set up a subpage to track how far you've gone through the existing correct New Yorks and then a bot to track the new links. That way you'd be sure of complete coverage. But that would require more care and thought than you seem interested in devoting to this little program and would cut against your apparent goal of maximizing your footprint within the encyclopedia, however clumsily. Lagrange61304:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Lagrange613:your apparent goal of maximizing your footprint within the encyclopedia, however clumsily – AGF much? BD2412 and others are conducting a much-needed effort to fix tens of thousands of ambiguous links to the term "New York", a strong proportion of which are meant for New York City instead of New York State. We came to this admittedly unusual solution after the community failed to reach consensus on making New York a disambiguation page. So we must disambiguate by piping. This is no personal crusade at all. As long as New York remains entrenched as the state article, the ambiguous links will persist and need constant monitoring for consistency. Piping them may not be elegant but it's effective and harmless. — JFGtalk10:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Given Lagrange613's quick devolution into personal attacks, I will disengage from further discussing this matter with him except to point out that we have fixed over ten thousand incorrect links (those that were pointing to New York when they clearly intended to point to New York City, New York (magazine), Province of New York, and a handful of other targets). I will not apologize for employing the methodology that was necessary to find and fix over ten thousand errors. bd2412T12:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You're not the first to round a comment up to a personal attack and use that as a pretext to refuse to engage in an argument you'd lose on the merits. For what it's worth, I think this effort is probably a net improvement to the encyclopedia, but it could have been even better had you not adopted this tactic, which is hardly "necessary" as others and I have explained to you. Your recent descent into edit warring unfortunately validates my conclusion that you're not coming at this in good faith. Kindly self-revert and stop edit warring. Lagrange61301:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
As I have previously stated, there is a clear consensus for this task. Consensus does not mean unanimity, it means that those who understand the goals and policies at issue have expressed support for the proposed change. I will continue to act in accordance with the established consensus. I gather that you do not understand why it is necessary to do this to insure that all incorrect links are fixed properly, so I would suggest you try doing it your way and you will learn for yourself. Bear in mind, of course, that when we started this task, there were over 75,000 links to fix. bd2412T01:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
And a difficult task at that. Definitely a highly significant improvement overall, and selectively targeted to address a very specific issue. Well done! Castncoot (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
This was also your reply to Pierre cb, that the only possible reason we could disagree with you is that we don't understand why you're doing it. In my experience, such accusations of denseness are often projections. Anyway, whatever you believe the consensus here to be, the consensus at Wikipedia is that edit warring is wrong. Believing that you have consensus on your side is not an excuse for edit warring, even when you are correct (which you are not). Lagrange61301:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No edit warring is going on here. I made an edit pursuant to, and with reference to, the consensus here. You reverted that edit without understanding. I properly reinstated the consensus-based edit with an explanation of the consensus. Apparently, at some point, you reverted this again, and the article got caught by a semi-automated bot process designed to fix hundreds of links like this without regard to the article they occur in. Reading anything more than that into this is incorrect. bd2412T02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initial results
Lengthy account of the initial cleanup effort through September.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At this point I have fixed about 20,000 links. The vast majority of these have been carried out by a bot. Basically, my process is to make a few hundred fixes manually, each time recording the pattern of text that dictate to fix it needed to be made. Once I find a large number of repeating patterns I plug those into the bot and let it automatically replicate those fixes across the 25,000 pages it can grab at a time. Of course the most common patterns are "city name, state name"; tables that have a "state" parameter; and groupings of states or cities together which reveal from the context whether "New York" is being referred to as a state or a city.
My focus has been on fixing the state links, and most of the links that I have found and addressed thus far are intended to point to the state. I would say that about one link in eight is intended for the city of New York. Of those about a third occur in citations which include the city of publication in identifying a book. This may be an example of the tremendous amount of overlinking going on. On a related note, this short article links to "New York" three times in a single paragraph.
Out of these thousands of links. There were also a smattering-perhaps four or five-instances of links intended to go to "New York magazine". I have found some other useful patterns. For example when locations of offices of a firm are referenced they are usually in the context of a group of cities, whereas incorporation is references in the context of the state. Virtually all references and articles about roads and highways are to the state, as are references in articles about weather phenomenon, distribution of wild animals and plants, and geological phenomenon. Also, political references such as identification of national political candidates or of politicians involved in the drafting of key legislation are, obviously, intended for the state. References to the city are most often found in things like airline destinations, places to which actors, musicians, and playwrights moved to develop their career, references in connection with specific institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art or Columbia University. I have seen a surprising number of instances of people piping [[New York]], [[New York]], linking the term in both cases as if they expect the city and state to be the same article. There are even instances of pipe links where the pipe points to "New York" while the visible text reads "New York City". I will have more to report as this project progresses. bd2412T04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Well done and thank you, BD. I stumbled across this debate whilst trying to fix wikilinks but stopped when I saw that a move was being discussed. I had not realised what a large and complex task this was. Certes (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Amazing the amount of cruft that accumulates. Probably not surprising, though, given the number of different editors with varying levels of experience. If this is just a preliminary fix, I'm OK with it. I don't know much about bots, but it should be simple to detect new links to "New York" in the future and fix them. Peter Flass (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous motion. Redirections are not encourage by Wikipedia and should not be proposed. I do not see the point of changing a perfectly good link with a redirection and I denie that there was here a consensus. This changing must stop! Pierre cb (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand why this is necessary. If you can come up with another way to fix all of the incorrect incoming links (thousands of links pointing to "New York" but intending to point to "New York City", please let us know. Cheers! bd2412T15:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks BD2412. Is there a page where you list the patterns that you have uncovered and that the bot applies? A list of regexps would be awesome, so other contributors could help with suggestions. — JFGtalk15:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If anyone wants them, I can email you my AWB file containing all the patterns I have put in so far - 260 of them! One reason there are so many is that there is great inconsistency in the layout of commonly used templates. The same template can be used, in different articles, with differing amounts of space or types of spaces around the pipes and equal signs on which they are based. bd2412T15:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I ought to have joined this discussion earlier, rather that wait for hundreds of articles to light up in my watchlist. However, it was a fairly quiet week in my real life, and next week will be busier, so I spent time checking and unwatching those articles. One argument above was that the new links are a bad thing because they are redirects, the riposte being that they are not broken part of the encyclopedia, so don't fix them. But, what was more typical on my watchlist deluge was places that were formerly in Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York and are now in Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York (state). Difficult for me to see that the old New York was a broken thing, and especially difficult to see that it has now been made better, in those hundreds of NYC locations. Perhaps I am failing to see an important point. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
At this point in my repair process, I'd put it at 12 to 15%. I would note, by the way, that my work to this point has given me a sense that the state may have a stronger claim to being the primary topic than I would have originally thought. In terms of long term historical significance, many articles indicate that the state as a political unit played a vital political role in the formation of the United States. bd2412T19:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
That is something I've been contemplating regarding this issue. We aren't really thinking about the comma convention when referring to US cities. When we write, say, "Rochester, New York", the "New York" in that construct refers to the state, not the city (and that's true for the city's boroughs, too). That would apply to every use of the comma convention regarding every city, town, village, or hamlet in the state, in every bit of written material in the English language. I think it's more evidence that there may not be a primary topic outright. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I see. As an old history buff that's how I've long seen it. As a Manhattanite I'm watching mostly NYC articles despite knowing the rest of the state is also important. More relevant here, now I see that the right answer for me is to repair those (state) links that are wrong, as they arise. Will do, so far as time allows. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I am not going to pretend I have read all of the above, or that I understand all the nuances of this debate, but something that has really bugged me for a long time is that it seems to me that the vast majority of references to "New York" mean "New York city" and that therefore, the relevant pages should be "New York" (for New York city, per WP:COMMONNAME) and New York (state) for the state. Or at the very least, that "New York" be a redirect to "New York City". Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I would hardly say that the "vast majority" of references are for the city. Over the course of this project so far (about 25,000 links done), around 12-15% are intended to refer to the city. It is worth noting that every reference to New York participating in a federal election, as a source of state laws, and as a place through which highways pass, is to the state. Also, every reference to New York in connection with any of the literally hundreds of cities, towns, and villages in New York outside of the city is also to the state. bd2412T23:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Excellent point, and one that strongly suggests that a DAB or overview article is a better choice than the NYC article for the base name. But there still seems to be no valid reason for the status quo. None whatsoever. (Sigh again) Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes BD2412, you are correct that "every reference to New York in connection with any of the literally hundreds of [localities] outside of the city is also to the state", but that's because the qualifier state is redundant in such contexts. You don't need to say "Albany, New York State" because "Albany, New York" is sufficient. However, I believe that standalone references to the term "New York" refer overwhelmingly to the city, which is why I think the city should be the primary topic, or at least, that "New York" be a redirect to "New York City". Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Outside of references to other cities, there are thousands of references indicating that someone was a "Senator from New York", "Governor of New York", some kind of "delegate from New York", all intending the state. We also have thousands of articles indicating that roads cross state lines "into New York", that rock formations stretch from New York into other states, that plants and animals range into New York, that rivers have their source in New York, and that mountains are found in New York. bd2412T14:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Ehich just seems to be more evidence that without context the words "New York" are ambiguous on their own and there is no primary topic. Which is what I've said before. I just want to be on record as being okay with "New York" pointing to the disambiguation page, but being utterly opposed to any course of action that would point it to the city, or, especially, moving the city article from New York City, with is a title that is common and unambiguous. oknazevad (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not the discussion about that issue. This is the discussion about how to fix links that currently point to the incorrect target. bd2412T00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The PT issue was answered in the first RM and has been several times since, if consensus would only be assessed according to the guidelines. But obviously, those guidelines aren't clear enough. Sorry, still off-topic. We may have made this discussion 0.001% messier than it already was. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I saw this in the watchlist - it's a bit of an odd project but it looks worthwhile, and I'm glad it's being done. Having the added redirect is a little unorthodox but solves the problem. Well done, all. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Links here
Now nearly all links directly to this article are in the talk namespace and nearly all links from the article namespace are from a re-direct. Will this page be moved soon?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see the (volumous) above discussion. There doesn't appear to be any move likely soon, but the link changes are being done as part of an effort to make sure the links are pointing at the right article (i.e. making sure that links to the city are pointing at the city, not the state). In the long run I'm not personally sure that lining to a redirect while piping to the actual article title is a good idea, but it is helping to ensure that links are pointing to the intended target. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It's an exercise in swamp-draining. Once the swamp is drained (i.e., incorrect links are fixed), then we'll decide what to do. There is no great rush (and, I think, some reason to pause for at least a number of months, or longer, after the last process). bd2412T19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree 100%, but I'm wondering whether we should try to get a formal close of the latest RM before that. Not quite sure how. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What difference does it make? If we change all the links and the page is not moved, then we will have fixed the incorrect links and will clearly be able to see new additions. If the page is eventually moved, then the links will already be pointing to the likely move target. bd2412T17:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
In my view there is no chance of building a better consensus at this time. As you know, I already assess a strong consensus once irrelevant arguments and !votes are discarded, but I am an involved party so that counts as nothing other than to explain my motives. This will come up again, but please only after a reasonable moratorium on RMs. So the sooner this RM is closed and the moratorium begun, the sooner I can get back to other things, and the sooner we can eventually resolve the matter. No consensus is not a good outcome, but if it must must be accepted at this point, then the sooner the better. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
What a herculean effort. I see that we're down to about 15 thousand pages left. FWIW, here's the pageview analysis. It shows that the city has at least three times the views as the state. But we already knew that PT wasn't decided by the page views criteria. wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
A more significant barometer, I think, is that the number of backlinks to "New York" is now down to about 107,800 (though this number will change each time the link is accessed), from the initial 119,000+ at the beginning of this project - meaning that more than 12,000 links have been corrected from "New York" to "New York City" (or, on a handful of occasions, "New York (magazine)", "New York University", "New York Harbor", "Province of New York", "New York metropolitan area", or various specified New York sports teams). bd2412T22:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add, by the way, that the process of fixing these links has uncovered a large number of ambiguous links where it is not at all clear whether the reference is to the city or the state. These links also tend to lack sourcing from which this determination can be made, which is another problem to be tagged. bd2412T03:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I had a similar experience on a smaller scale. I looked at many articles but ended up improving very few of them, because most of the links were unclear. I eventually realised that I was probably looking at pages other editors had also tried and failed to fix, as we don't have a way of marking them as already reviewed. Certes (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if there is a way to determine the number of links pointing directly to New York, and not through any redirects. At the moment, This link shows 116629 backlinks to New York (about 4,000 fewer than when this project started), and This link shows 43289 backlinks to New York (state), which is about 21,000 more than when this project started. I believe the 4,000 reduction in links to New York reflects the number of links changed to point to New York City (or, on a few occasions, removed from the article altogether as overlinking). bd2412T00:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Is your bot done with the pattern replacements? If yes, how can we help for the next steps? Manual checking of 25,000 links is feasible in a few days with a team of 10 AWB-assisted editors. Shall we divide the job by initial letters? — JFGtalk19:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking something like that. I'm running the bot one more time to see if any of the pattern fixes have been missed. I note that there are occasional references to the "New York metropolitan area" and "New York Harbor", which should probably point to New York metropolitan area and New York Harbor, but which I have heretofore piped to New York City. At some point, I'll go back and fix those too. As the easy fixes dwindle, there are harder questions. There are many instances of short articles that say someone was "born in New York" or "died in New York" without giving further context or guidance to determine which New York is meant. bd2412T19:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I just did a quick AWB pass to get a feel for the current state of affairs. Most links are easy to decide. I fixed 34 to the city and 17 to the state. I'm sure we can find more patterns before going manual. — JFGtalk20:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
My rough estimate at this point is that about 9,500 of the link fixes made in this project to date have been to correct links from New York to New York City. It occurs to me, by the way, that there are a number of links to the state, perhaps in the low hundreds, that really should point to Province of New York, when the subject explicitly precedes statehood. bd2412T03:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow, you've found one in one of the articles I wrote.[1] I must have thought "New York" meant the city when I wrote that. How wrong can one be... — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should be tagging links {{dn}} just yet. A better option might be {{clarify}}. If New York is identified as a place of significance in a biography, we might also ask for sourcing. bd2412T19:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Right, but {{dn}} is a handy one-click option offered by the tool I've been using (DisamAssist); this enables a quick marking to revisit such links later. I've added {{clarify}} now where I couldn't determine the correct target and nobody else did it in the meantime. — JFGtalk21:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note - with under 7,000 links to fix, so far the total number of links to New York (directly or through redirects) is down to 100930. This is a drop of over 18,000 from the original count, meaning that at least 18,000 of those links were pointing to the wrong target at the beginning of this project. Because this project has also addressed new links being created, the actual number is probably at least a few hundred more than that. bd2412T19:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Now under 3,000 incoming links, with over 21,000 links intending targets other than the state fixed. Of course, we can still use all the help we can get here. bd2412T04:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that it was. This is one of the 80,000 or so correct links (although needing clarification) that need to be piped in order to clearly identify and fix the 21,000+ incorrect links. bd2412T15:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case, the line should specify St. Louis, Missouri, and specify the location(s) in New York, since it is otherwise mixing cities and states in one line, which is inconsistent. I would assume that training sought in New York was in some populated place, and not roaming around the backwoods around the Finger Lakes. bd2412T00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No. That's an imaginary problem, the next line has Chicago and Iowa, and there is no such problem either according to the source or in language. As for the Finger Lakes, they would be surprised to learn they had no schools. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This is an excellent opportunity for a case study. There is no ambiguity with Chicago and Iowa as place names, although it is still an inconsistent use of types. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that a person traveling to "New York" to receive instruction in some field of general knowledge, without additional context or clarification, is traveling to the city of New York, known for its large number of educational institutions. In the case of Elizabeth Harrison (educator), specifically, here is a source that says that Harrison "traveled to New York to study with Maria Boelte". Maria Kraus-Boelté, in turn, taught at the New York University School of Education. This is, of course, located in New York City. Therefore, the original edit was correct: Elizabeth Harrison sought training in St. Louis and in New York City. bd2412T01:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The source it was taken from is this one [3] which explicitly references New York and links to New York, yes the state. The original was already correct - you did not make it correct, you made-up an imaginary problem where there is none. Both your source and the source used find targeting New York City of no import. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
If the article specifies "New York City", it is more accurate based on the source I have provided. If for some reason you wish to forego that level of accuracy, I can't stop you. bd2412T03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea because she studied with a number of different people and loading the article up with all of them takes away the focus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC) It would be better to expand history of kindergarten articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No. What would be terrible is the argument that rejects WP:RS because of this, so much so, that it makes easily disproved claims that Britannica is not on the internet, [5], and Britannica gave up paper a while ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote more carefully. My claim is not that Britannica is still written on paper; it is that Britannica still writes as if it were on paper. What you are proposing is even worse - to reject a reliable source merely because it is not Britannica. bd2412T01:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
No. Your argument based on your personal opinion of RS encyclopedia demonstrates the your claims are without merit. Sorry, Wikipedia do not work on your personal opinion. An RS encyclopedia you are not.Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Have you forgotten what you are arguing for? I added reference to Maria Kraus-Boelté precisely because a reliable source, National Louis University, states that Harrison traveled to New York to study with Boelté. Clearly, National Louis University feels that this is an important historical fact. However, you chose to remove this reliably sourced information from the article solely to conform it to what Britannica sees fit to include, therefore elevating Britannica's editorial policies over Wikipedia's. If you are allowed to do this, then nothing will prevent you from trying to remove every piece of information in Wikipedia not found in Britannica. bd2412T03:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
No. Have you forgotten that we don't just copy everything in sources? Have you forgotten, that you did not find a single one of those sources and put them in the article? I did that, so plainly did not reject the sources. Your claim that you know better than the general RS encyclopedia does about a general encyclopedia article is the only thing that is whole unsourced. Your claim can only be based on an argument that we must copy everything in sources, which is plainly untrue. Your edit unbalanced the article by focusing on a single name drop, and it was nothing to do with a good encyclopedia article, it had to do with odd fixation on New York City that neither source says is of import. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you now referring to Britannica as "the general RS encyclopedia"? I can assure you, its authors are not infallible. It is entirely encyclopedic to describe the notable influences of notable people; if you find this addition to be "unbalanced" then balance it by adding a more complete picture of the subject's network of influence, rather than concealing this information from the reader. bd2412T04:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
No. Your edit did not describe -- influence, let alone influences, was not even discussed in your edit. Of course, the article is not about the name you dropped, it is about someone else. As for your personal assurances, I'm sure we already discussed that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Now under 500 incoming links, with over 22,500 links intending targets other than the state fixed. At this point, a majority of the remaining links are ambiguous, and have been tagged {{clarify}}. bd2412T16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Now under 250 incoming links, with the remainder being a fairly stable set of truly ambiguous links tagged with {{clarify}}. Many of these can be fixed by more intense research, but some defy resolution, in which case I would propose to pipe them to the state. Also, about a half dozen new links are created each day, with most of these resolving to the city. bd2412T16:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not that hard to patrol. I just load up "What links here" to New York on AWB, set it to ignore pages containing {{clarify}} tags, and run through the few new ones. I am more interested in right now in an effort to fix the ambiguous, tagged links. bd2412T22:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Now down to exactly 195 incoming links. I have been patrolling newly created links, and I would say that about 20 are added per day, splitting about 60/40 for the state/city, with a very occasional link intended for the magazine or for New York Harbor. bd2412T23:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Now that the huge backlog of ambiguous links is cleared, let's discuss how to keep things clean with minimal editor burden. I see the following needs:
Notifying competent editors of the need to resolve the remaining ambiguous cases: perhaps simply post a standard notice on the talk pages of affected articles? Pinging their main contributors? (doesn't look too heavy as such articles are generally rather far on the long tail of popularity)
Crafting a process to patrol newly-created ambiguous links to New York and notifying a small team of volunteers to handle them. A bot-updated page to watch would be ideal (looks similar to RMCD bot's work; pinging author wbm1058 for ideas).
Enshrining a permanent explanation of why links to the state must be piped, without forcing puzzled editors to read the New York Titling Wars: Complete Works, Annotated, Revised and Augmented Edition…
Brilliant idea there wbm1058, you should definitely advertise it, because even people like me who read every New York minutiae three times over summer had failed to notice it. This is actually close to a suggestion that some editors made regarding the titling practice of Encyclopedia Britannica, where multiple articles can have the same title, with a disambiguator listed below. With your proposal, we would have solid underlying disambiguated page names with ambiguous article titles displayed in their natural style. I could see this feature used on plenty of ambiguous titles, such as Mercury or Soyuz. — JFGtalk01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The m:Community Wishlist Survey is currently in the Voting phase, which runs Nov 28-Dec 12. Cast your votes now! Only support votes are counted. Maybe this can run up the rail from the rear on the backside of the voting window! Gotta finish in the top 10 to show. wbm1058 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
For the remaining ambiguous cases, it would be nice if we could hire a bot to find the edit that added the link to a given article, and then ping the editor who made that edit with the clarification question. bd2412T23:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed some of them; it's generally a matter of confirming the cited source. Has to be done manually, not with AWB. If it's a living person, check to see if they have a bio on their website. Remsen Corners, Ohio was an interesting one to research. If there is no citation at all, replace {{clarify}} with {{citation needed}}; I haven't done that with any of them yet. wbm1058 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
BD2412, I'm actually quite concerned that the number of pageviews for New York has dropped substantially to not many more than for Massachusetts and New Jersey, states with a third to less than half of New York's population (and perhaps commensurately by chance, WP:NOTABILITY). Is it possible that an overzealous attempt at link "correction" toward the City has taken place? Castncoot (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Some of the older pageviews may be from readers who hoped to learn about the city rather than the state. When they hover over the link, such readers now see that this is not the article they are looking for, and may be less likely to click. Certes (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there has been a noticeable drop overall, but for all three aforementioned states. It may be just a seasonal phenomenon. Something to keep checking back on now and then, however. Castncoot (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
About the same relative rankings as when stated above on December 16, 2016, bd2412. Maybe the relative levels of interest are accurately reflected at this point. Castncoot (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Assessing this RfC was complicated by editing of the lede during the discussion but the essential points of the lede remained close enough to what was visible at the start that an assessment is still possible. There is a clear consensus that editors believe the lede places inordinate weight on New York City at the expense of the state in general. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)21:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that there is limited space in the lead to fully summarize an article, and also given that the lead, in the state it was in until I tried to make it better, featured almost 50% of the text solely about New York City and ignored most of the state, I pared down some of the more esoteric New York City information and added, to replace it, more information about New York State as a whole which was missing from the article. It was called "vandalism" and reverted. Which is, itself, an interesting definition of "vandalism" but I'd rather not get into that here. Please consider, for the purpose of this RFC the narrow question of a) does the lead represented by This version, which focuses mostly on New York City, or the lead represented by this version which has roughly the same amount of text but changes the focus to New York State present a better version of the article. I'm not even particularly attached to the exact wording here, just on the general question of should we or should we not alter the lead to focus on New York State more than New York City specifically. Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. --Jayron3221:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Lead is fine as has been longstandingly
I note commenting from some who simply don't have the requisite New York topic experience. As User:Alanscottwalker infers below correctly, NYC contains 40% of the New York's population, and the New York City metropolitan area's population within the state composes two-thirds of the State population. And as far as gross regional economic output goes, the City composes the majority of the State's gross state product, and the City's metropolitan area within the State composes the vast majority of the State's economic output, over 75%. Again folks, New York City is actually in New York State (let's not forget that), and WP:UNDUE would actually be NOT to discuss NYC and its metro area with their significant due weights in the lead. As User:bd2412 infers below, Illinois discusses Chicago even more heavily than this article discusses NYC, mentioning Chicago 6 (!!!!!!) times as of this writing [6] and Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in an additional instance; but this is entirely correct. This longstanding lead format should stay as is. Otherwise, the ledes of all U.S. state articles with dominant cities would have to be changed, and this would not be an improvement at all. Castncoot (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Illinois article, "this other article is shitty too, so we're forced to keep this article shitty" is not a strong argument. Also, "This article has been shitty a long time so we must keep it shitty forever" is also not a strong argument. You might want to try a different tack. --Jayron3204:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The lede has been changed very significantly now, since this RfC started. We should all take a breather here. I would support leaving it as is at this point because the different topics needing to be balanced have reached a delicate state of nirvana: NYC/Downstate/Upstate, general/urban/geographic/historical/tourist/academic. If any one card is perturbed, the whole house of cards...well, you know. Castncoot (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Funny, Paine! I think the lede has now been edited heavily mid-RfC toward shifting the emphasis even more toward the State. Remember that two-thirds of the State's population lives in or around NYC, so it's a bit difficult to "overemphasize" the City. We should be stable at ths point. Castncoot (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
People—there's only one para that discusses NYC here, out of five paragraphs! The last paragraph discusses prominent tourist attractions and universities in the State, most of which happen to be within the City! Castncoot (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Lead needed to focus more on New York State rather than New York City
The way the current lead is written is indeed focused too much on NYC. Quite a few of those sentences can be removed from the NYS lead. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk)21:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my long standing and well known opinion that the title New York should be occupied by either the NYC page or a dab page... the fact remains that *this* article, wherever it may be housed (currently at New York) is about the state. Therefore the lede should focus on the state as a whole, obviously with some mention of NYC's status as a global city, but not dominated by that. — Amakuru (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The "NYC" version is jarring because the NYC-focused paragraph seems like a sudden change of subject, into something pasted from an NYC article. So I prefer the NYS-focused version. It would be fine to start from that and smoothly work in another NYC-related sentence or so, but the previous full NYC paragraph was too much and too distinct. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Adding a graf to overview geography and removing throwaways saying NYC is "one of the most populous" and is "fast-paced" is definitely appropriate for a state's page. (NYC should probably be noted as the location of almost every major landmark listed in the final graf, though.) The other thing I would recommend is having the Pre-Columbian graf moved before the geography graf, since then the first three grafs talk about people and the last two talk about places. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Obviously the lead section of the New York state article should focus on New York state, with appropriate mentions of New York City. If we allow NYC to dominate this lead because it's big, we are doing a disservice to readers who want to learn about more of New York than the city. — JFGtalk07:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The article is the rticle of the state, so all parts of it, except for possibly a brief section about the city, should be about the state - not about ANY city. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu16:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The sub-section title above is worded poorly as it only really admits one answer, as discussed in more detail below, but I can support some pairing back of the current second paragraph, or move of some mention to other paragraphs, which is also a thing that this RfC is not set-up to address, since it started off with stating, it's not looking for the detail (and as they say, the devil is in the detail, as the varying opinions in this sub-section demonstrate). The lead as also changed somewhat from the start of this RfC, and it remains that there are some 80 discussions of New York City in the article body because in fact, and per WP:LEAD, New York City is very significant to the subject of the state. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, some reduction of the amount of ink dedicated to New York City in the lede appears to be in order. Since the city has its own article, the state article should focus more on state-level things, and just vector the reader off for more on the city. The linked alternative version seems about right. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Support in theory, since this is not the New York City article. That said, people keep editing it mid-RfC, so it's difficult to say it should have "more" or "less" – than which version? In general, I think it shouldn't have a lot of NYC-specific info in the lead. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree the State article lede needs to provide an overview of the State article in general, per SMcCandlish and others above. This does not mean ignoring NYC, far from it; the extent to which NYC occupies what portion of the lede can be discussed, and is indeed a necessary and interesting discussion, after all its population is about 42% of the entire State's. Best, FoCuScontribs; talk to me!18:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I support the change. Readers will come to this article for statewide information. The proposed version strikes a better balance. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I too agree the lede is way too focused on NYC rather than the state, The hatnote clearly say "This article is about the state of New York. For the city, see New York City." so I don't really see any reason to fill the state article up with everything-NYC. –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year13:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This RFC has not stated that they should be forever stricken, but has presented two possible versions of the lead, with roughly the same amount of text, that present different amounts of balance, for comparison. However, at no point in the RFC does it say that the lead should ignore New York City and the metro area as though they don't exist. --Jayron3200:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
There are something like 80 mentions alone of New York City in the body of the article - it's difficult to find a section that does not mention it. So, even if you pair back some, a WP:Lead has to reflect that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding BD2412's comment about California, as far as I can see that article's lede only has two sentences on its cities, namely: Los Angeles is California's most populous city, and the country's second largest after New York City and The San Francisco Bay Area has the nation's highest median household income by metropolitan area, and is the headquarters of three of the world's largest 20 firms by revenue, Chevron, Apple, and McKesson. — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah Castncoot said that too. Trouble is, there's far less to Illinois outside of Chicago than there is to NY outside of NYC. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)02:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That particular comparison between the two cities and/or states (NYC vs Chicago and/or NY vs Illinois) is subjective at best, and essentially unverifiable. And this article's lede actually does do a reasonably meticulous job in discussing different urban, geographic, and historical features of the State. I think people should find something else to do here. Castncoot (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I utterly disagree, both that they are dissimilar and that the similarity is unverifiable. Both New York and Illinois are large, heavily populated states with one maritime megacity known around the world, and many smaller cities of varying importance, including state capitals separate from that largest city. bd2412T04:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my point, bd2412– I was agreeing with you and challenging User:Ɱ's statement that the two cities and their relationships with their respective states were dissimilar! Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems like an evitable side-effect of the failed attempts to get this page changed to a disambiguation page. If this page were New York (state), your suggested lede would undoubtedly be better. As it stands, the existing NYC-centric lede is probably more useful for the majority of people who search for "New York" hoping to find the Big Apple. Smurrayinchester09:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is unambiguously about the state of New York. Whatever opinions we hold on the best title for this page, its topic is clear. Yes, some readers who reach this article will be seeking information on the city rather than the state, but copying information from New York City into this article isn't the right solution to that problem. Certes (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
And the City is dominantly the most WP:NOTABLE feature of the State. I think the latest updates to the lede take care of any issues regarding potential underdiscussion of the rest of the State. The lede appears to be in a well-balanced state of nirvana now, those with New York topic experience I believe will find. We should all find something else to do now. Castncoot (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It's pretty apparent some meeting in the middle will occur so, perhaps focus on what needs to remain. Part of the reason is the RfC "positions" are intentionally or unintentionally one-sidedly worded. Should the state article lead focus on the state? Only has one possible answer. It's also not this issue really. The issue is, how much should existentially indispensable aspects of that state in the body of the article, be covered in the lead? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 15 December 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.
Where's the trim?
Looks like the lede section still has too much detail on New York City despite the RfC having closed with consensus to reduce coverage several months ago. Who feels comfortable enough with the subject matter to trim it down? — JFGtalk15:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the party. This discussion has been going strong for about 10 years. The current arrangement is the most recent consensus for how to deal with New York State/City nomenclature and was the result of many weeks of discussion and wide participation. As noted by BD2412, given that we just wrapped up a round of discussion on this, and we JUST finished enacting the results of that discussion, it is unlikely we're going to change anything for the time being. --Jayron3213:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@William M. Bugbee: Exactly. A warm welcome to you! Should you enjoy reading exquisitely detailed megabytes of argumentation (good-faith, bad-faith and ugly-faithless varieties), kindly head to #Requested move 19 July 2016 and its numerous subpages. If you just have time for a quick overview, read the FAQ which is folded at the top of this page. — JFGtalk22:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
To editor William M. Bugbee: Welcome to the ongoing pursuit of a correct name for this article. There is one other related discussion that may also interest you and can be found at #RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?. A case has been building steadily over the last year or so to grant your proposal; however, since the most recent attempt to rename this page became long and somewhat tiresome, several of its participants would like to see us wait a little longer before another attempt is made. Others of us were "born ready", and the waiting period no longer needs to be "officially" extended. So it is refreshing to hear your thoughts on this matter, and if you prefer to lodge a formal proposal to rename this article to "New York (state)", then please follow the procedure set forth in the requested moves instruction page. Be prepared to garner lots of support for, as well as lots of opposition to, your page-rename proposal. Thank you for your fresh viewpoint, and best to you! Paine Ellsworthu/c12:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there a moratorium on new move proposals for this page? I may be remembering wrong, but I thought at some point there was consensus to wait six months from the close of the last one. bd2412T17:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion was closed on August 10th. If you take a 6 month moratorium, that is over now. There was, however, a significant amount of consensus to wait 12 months. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu22:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't remember any such consensus in regard to a moratorium on new move proposals. In point of fact, there was post-proposal discussion that ended in "no consensus" for any moratorium and talk about making a new move proposal in January of this year. Here it is mid-February, and the need for disambiguation of this article's title still exists as it has existed for ten years. As there was no basis in policy nor guideline to keep this article at its present title without disambiguation, and plenty of basis in policy and guideline to disambiguate it, then further waiting serves no purpose whatsoever, in my humble opinion. Paine Ellsworth - put'r there – 16:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
PS. It is important to keep in mind that very few if any editors want to actually rename this article to anything other than "New York". The article title should be expected to remain exactly what it is. All that is needed is a qualifier in parentheses, "(state)" – nothing more, nothing less. PS added by Paine Ellsworth - put'r there –
@BD2412: - long time, no see! Best regards! FrankB
I'm totally flummoxed that this is a topic of discussion at all at this late date. If it were ...2004, well, even that was late! What happened to commonsense and the age old wisdom of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it?' Suggesting one fix things unnecessarily makes one immediately question your maturity and judgement, forsooth!
New York City and New York. NY and New York. New York City and NYC. Where is there confusion? Why should the thousands of links be jeopardized.
Why should the server undergo a load to update all those pages, or their storage become necessary from an totally unnecessary change to text which really won't matter, except to require extra work and intervention by a BOT to put things right. THERE IS A COST to the foundation, hard disk space is not infinite, and on a page like this where there will be a ripple effect to thousands of pages needing updated, it is potentially tremendous if redirects are 'updated' to point the new title.
You lot best beware! Supporting renaming an clearly delineated article like this because some arbitrarily stupid guideline in the MOS suggests chimerical one-size-fits-all solutions actually exist is really pathetic reasoning. Perhaps you ought consult Santa and the tooth fairy. Last I looked a manager class (like editors) exist to make decisions because such neat cookie-cutter niches do not exist. Never have. This is an idealist solution one might see from academics and students with little practical real world experience and a cavalier attitude to costs because someone else is paying the bills. Tell you want, pass a blanket requirement RFC so we also unnecessarily have uniformity such that we link all fifty: Alaska (state), Hawaii (state), Texas (state), California (state), Pennsylvania (state), and so forth, and I'll support the nonsense of this idea and do away with New York (state) and all those obnoxious redirect pages too. Promise. And good luck, Harumph. (And stop editing forever immediately after. We have enough hoops to jump through without such extra typing requirements!) Otherwise, drop the silly idea. (You ought support the KEEP on the TFD for {{adr}} if you like these parenthesised names. Swear they're the bane of clear exposition!)
Suggesting change to a longer form with a parenthesis thereafter evermore requiring pipetricking for a short presentation phrase is the kind of reasoning one would expect of a parasite on society, someone with a government job, or worse, the much to be reviled lawyer class. For Pete's sake! Get a life! Do something useful. There are loads of Refimprove tags to research and clear! // FrankB15:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, California and Pennsylvania all have clear, unambiguous, primary topics: The US states. The point isthat New York doesn't have a clear topic. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu17:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Further to that, Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (state) exist, without problem. As for the "load to update all those pages", I'm afraid you're a bit late to that party. We decided last fall to make all incoming links pipe through New York (state), in order to find and fix the tens of thousands of errors (links intended to point to New York City, specific New York-based sports teams and universities, and New York magazine). We did most of that work from September to November, adding up to about 120,000 edits and 20,000 repairs of actual errors. Fixing 20,000 mistakes made the rest of the work worth it. As of now, there are fewer than 200 direct links to "New York". bd2412T23:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like us to have another go at this some time soon. I remain confident that this anomaly will be corrected sooner or later, but obviously we have to make sure we handle the process properly. If we're to have a panel closure, then we need clear guidelines as to how that is going to work. i.e. do the panel deliberate amongst themselves and provide a single unified decision, or do they post individual decisions as they did last year? Those sorts of questions. Last year we had two panellists who agreed that a move should be made, based on consensus and evidence, but it fell through because one panellist felt he was biased and didn't like to cast the "deciding" vote. I sort of think this is a case of the infamous User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle... once this change is eventually made, be it this year, next year or ten years hence, there will be no turning back. No move back to the current status quo would ever be entertained. But of course to get to that point we still have to make sure the process is fair and above board. That's all. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I support having another go soon, preceded by the move supporters agreeing on a desired outcome and preparing a concise argument for it. Although it's an essay rather than policy, the Yogurt Principle is very relevant. I recommend that all participants and closers read User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. Certes (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I should point out that the "yogurt principle" is not without its critics - see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt_Rule, where it was demoted from a project-space essay to userspace. However, as a general guide to how much time can be wasted on such issues, how consensus should be determined through policy arguments rather than head counting, and as a suggestion to consider move requests from the opposite point of view - if the page was already at the target would you consider moving it back - I think it's quite educational. — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Every participant in a contested move request should ask themselves "Would I support moving it back?" This is analogous to the fabled Jesuit principle of learning to argue both sides of a question as forcefully as you can. Helps see the light in many cases. Note that the July 2016 discussion placed this among supporting arguments; I find it very compelling myself, but obviously we need to convince a sufficiently broad segment of our fellow editors. The nomination should be shorter than last time, distilling the essence of each positive point for the move. I'd be happy to assist in preparing a draft. — JFGtalk12:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
How about this as a formal proposal:
Every six months, we change the title of this article. It will cycle through the following titles: New York, New York State and New York (state) in order, and be changed exactly six months from the date of the closing of this discussion
It would have the same end result as the current endless cycle of discussions, and would allow people to get on with their business without having to actually have the discussions every six months to move the article, same result + less work = win for all. --Jayron3212:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
No, because that's exactly the point I'm making above. Once the article is moved to New York (state), and is stable there, nobody will ever propose moving it again, and cycles of discussion won't be necessary. We saw the same thing with Washington (state), after it was eventually moved some years ago. — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Doubtful. Likely within minutes of being moved to another title, someone will initiate a new move discussion. It happened before with this article, and its happening now. --Jayron3215:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I find that statement a little pessimistic. There have been some moves that have achieved a sort of consensus equilibrium after years of controversy. I'm an editor from way back (I no longer edit consistently and my account is inactive) who engaged in the famed (awful) yogurt wars, and I actually argued at the time (circa 2006) that the page should be kept at Yoghurt, as I believed that sticking to a policy of "we maintain the status quo unless there's an overwhelmingly good reason to change the status quo" was the easiest way to put the issue to bed. It appears I was wrong on that one, and perhaps I should have considered a rule of reason for common usage. Still, B2C's essay that the move would have inevitably generated consensus is not quite right ... as shown by the RM2 to RM3 switch.
Here, my initial impulse was similar: the state articles I was familiar with do not use the (state) qualifier, so why should we use it here? Furthermore, as Farbartus (FrankB) stated above, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Even though I've softened since 06, I still think precedent and a high burden of proof on those proposing the move are solid principles.
However, it appears that if there is precedent, it is actually to use the qualifier. The norm seems to be that if a state shares a name with another exceedingly common polity, use the qualifier. Credit to User:Od Mishehu and User: BD2412 for pointing that out. As he said: Washington (which is commonly used to refer to both the state and D.C.) is listed as Washington (state); Georgia, which could refer to the U.S. state or the country, is listed as Georgia (U.S. state).
Furthermore, this case is actually a little different than yoghurt; it's more significant. When a user linked to yogurt, the link would always send users to the right page (Yogurt or Yoghurt); it was a redirect. So it's not as though a user would type [[yogurt]] and expect the link to send users to milk. On the other hand, when the average user types New York ... are they expecting users to be sent to the state? I'm doubtful. And what's worse, I'm doubtful every user will check. Thanks to the work of users who check for these things (again, credit to BD2412), that can be resolved ... but it's making lives more difficult, not easier. That said, of course such a user wouldn't expect a disambiguation page either, but going through "What Links Here" on a disambiguation page, knowing almost all of the links should point to specific articles, is much easier than going through What Links here on an article page.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
PS. Should note that my TIC above was based upon reading your "ten days" incorrectly as "ten years". Oddly enough it works both ways; however, it's probably a bit funnier with "years". PS added by Paine Ellsworthput'r there
The ten day period is merely an estimate of how long it should take to write a decent move proposal, outlining the reasons for a page move. There is, of course, no deadline. bd2412T23:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, BD2412, I will contribute to the initiative. There are many arguments to re-use from the previous debate but they should be distilled to their essence. One of the problems of the previous discussion was the walls of text spewed out on both sides of the debate, which must have been intimidating to editors who just wished to get the essentials of the debate. Hence I will strongly advocate to keep the rationale short and sharp. Short words are best, said Churchill… — JFGtalk23:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, JFG, for you've "got the ball". Another issue was that there was no "ironclad" page target, and in a case such as this page, a clear "move this page to that page" seems a necessity. Hope all will continue to consider that a move to "New York (state)" is not a "rename" technically. This article would retain its "New York" title with the sole difference of having the needed qualifier. Paine Ellsworthput'r there00:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Would it be better to phrase the proposal as a move of New York (disambiguation) to New York, as a consequence of which the state article has to gain a qualifier? Although a move of the state article has some advantages in itself, the main reason is to make room for the dab. Certes (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that the contentious proposition is that the existing title should be moved. However, we could certainly have the discussion on the talk page of the disambiguation page, which has a lot more space to work with. In the end, it's the same discussion. bd2412T01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I rather like the idea of moving the disambig page to New York. The long squabbles over whether the city or the state should be primarytopic ought to be enough to conclude that neither should be, and that disambiguation is necessary. In any case, I applaud those who are working to disambiguate the links, so that the title issues can proceed independently (and cycle through titles every 6 months if that's what people prefer, or default to). Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Opponents will rightly point out that calling the state article New York isn't wrong per se. If we could give the name New York to ten pages then the state article would be one of them. In my opinion, the real reason for the moves is so a reader who types New York can see a page that includes the topic they're seeking. Moving the state article to vacate the title New York is a side-effect of that. Anyone who thinks that our main objective is to move New York to New York (state) for its own sake may well !vote Oppose, so let's make the benefits very clear. Certes (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, for my 2¢, since it's pretty ambiguous, making it the disambiguation page seems pretty naturally logical. The one thing I absolutely want to not ever happen is moving the city article, as it's the absolute best example of natural disambiguation possible. oknazevad (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The options are: the state, the city, the dab page, and an overview on the name. Technically true, but placing the disambiguation page is the easiest option to gain consensus, and the one recommended by policy when there are disagreements; so that outcome should be the one asked at the next RfC. We already tried having a discussion open to all possibilities, and it didn't end well. Diego (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd thought of that as a final resting place for the "official" proposal, not understanding that it was a drafting site too. Sorry for being dim! Certes (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on New York (state). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
and apologies for bringing it up but my hope is that a few words now will save another descent into the abyss, or at least postpone it until 2018. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
True. This is just a heads-up. Please discuss at Talk:New York City as suggested above. Or we could move it to Talk:New York which might make a little more sense, the discussion is on the city talk page just because another editor started it there (again, see above) but it's directly relevant to that page.
Mind you, it was also directly relevant to this page before your recent edits, which were made shortly after this section was created and addressed one of the issues (thank you!). Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Indian isn't a language?
Why is it included in the list of languages in the infobox? And why does the link only refer to Indians in NY City, not the whole state? 50.75.164.82 (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Good eye. Not only is that a false data point, but there were multiple inappropriate links hidden by the pipes. These entries are for the languages, and should not point to the ethnic groups. Especially when the target article is about the city, not the whole state (or even worse, the NYC metro area, which includes areas not even in the state). I have removed those links. oknazevad (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The parenthetical was chosen after years of extensive discussion and debate. The final discussion was here. The parenthetical was overwhelmingly endorsed. Leave this sleeping dog to lie. oknazevad (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
"Differ" vs "differentiate"
The sentence To differ the state from the city with the same name, it is sometimes called New York State. is incorrect grammar. The correct word is "differentiate". "Differ" means "be unlike or dissimilar" while "differentiate" means "recognize or ascertain what makes something different". epicgenius (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
No, “distinguish” is a better word. “Differentiate” is too coupled to calculus and has aquiured an association with continuums. Or is that continuua? Continua? Like in “continually”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that "distinguish" removes the argument about this altogether. And I thought the same thing about "differentiation". It's the area below a curve from b to c (), it equals . Which is the antiderivative of , incidentally. It's not really related to continua (that's the correct plural). epicgenius (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2018 (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.
@Castncoot, Alanscottwalker, Station1, Oknazevad, and Dhtwiki: In non-obvious circumstances (i.e. when there is no possibility of confusion with the state), should we use the name "New York" instead of "New York City”, as this name is mostly just a disambiguator, as outlined in this discussion. This discussion is intended to apply project-wide, not just here; it seems I have to make this clear.IWI (chat) 19:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You want a rule project-wide? I don't think that can be decided here, also it strikes me as WP:CREEP, so I would oppose such heavy-handed rule-making. (Also, I reject the underlying assumption, NYC, "New York City" is a common name, and editors should be free to use a common name). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. But one can say either "New York City" or "New York", even if it's clear that the city is the only topic being talked about. Neither is incorrect. We don't change all uses of a term just because one use case is more common. epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - it's unnecessary, regressive, and quite stupid IMO. At least with the current names, we have natural disambiguation. I don't see this as an improvement, especially as it may cause confusion. epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I never suggested that. I said that it's regressive because sometimes (not every time), people may use just "New York" to refer to the state. If you had a sentence, like Company X is headquartered in New York but it's really headquartered in the Hudson Valley, then of course you can add "City". And anyway, I forgot to mention that I agree with Alanscottwalker's objection that this is unnecessary rule creep, and this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If the sentence isn't confusing, you don't need to make it confusing. epicgenius (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, apologies for my error. The two main instances I’m referring to here are the "Largest City" parameter of the infobox and the list of the largest cities of the state. Here, it is non-obvious, what is people’s opinion on these particular cases? IWI (chat) 20:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It's OK. I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be a rule across the entire project. It's just that when "New York City" is mentioned, the topic is obviously the city, and when "New York" is used, there is often context about whether the topic is the state, the city, the county, or something else. The two examples you cited are pretty good contextual examples, but other cases may not be as obvious. epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment, but would oppose any "rule". Instruction creep is a real problem, much more than whether "New York" or "New York City" is used. "New York" is the name of the city, and when it's not ambiguous, it's usually better writing, and more correct, but we should leave it to individual editors to decide what makes sense in each case. "New York is the largest city in the United States" is better than the same sentence with a redundant "City". However, "New York borders New Jersey" might be ambiguous, depending on context. I've sometimes changed "New York City" to "New York" while copyediting, but don't go out of my way to do that. The New York (state) article is almost a special case, because we need to be especially clear about which New York we're talking about; it could be more confusing here than elsewhere for someone unfamiliar with the topic. We should also bear in mind that some readers might wonder whether New York City and the city named New York are the same thing; many Americans think London and the City of London are the same. Station1 (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I make a point of changing "New York" to "New York City" wherever I find it, if the reference is clearly to the city, and addition of the word will not disrupt the flow of the sentence. bd2412T00:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose the proposal and the edit for the reasons stated by others above, I don't believe this really needs to be elaborated any further. Castncoot (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
We’ve already established the overall proposal is opposed; but the specific edits have seen less backlash; so do people oppose to those, and similar, edits. IWI (chat) 18:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't really object to those edits, because they're not incorrect, and are generally better writing, but I can see the other side too in this particular article, because some editors might want to make it crystal clear which NY is being referred to, even to the point of redundancy. I don't think it's a big deal either way. In other articles, I would most likely make similar edits. (I'm not sure why you changed the 5 counties from size to alphabetical order in the table about size, but that's an exceedingly minor point.) Station1 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose American usage is almost always "New York City", especially in situations where one is also discussing the state. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
But Exhibits B-Q: New York Times, New York Post, NYPD, FDNY, CBS New York, NBC New York, New York Yankees, New York Mets, New York magazine, Time Out New York, New York Hall of Science, New York World's Fair(s), New York Municipal Airport, New York metropolitan area, DKNY, New York New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Both are widely used where context is clear. Station1 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
That lead section needs to be fixed: "New York City is a global city" "The state's most populous city, New York City". These sentences are just annoying. Also the infobox "Largest city" parameter should be amended also. Do I have consensus for these changes? To address Alanscottwalker's concerns, this would change all examples present in that section of prose. IWI (chat) 02:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
No. First, it is more than perfectly fine to write, things like, 'New York City is a very large city' as it is a most sensible and correct sentence, to anyone who even pretends to know anything about it. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the article naturally begins in the first paragraph talking about 'New York', the state, so we should not wip-lash the reader in the second paragraph to talk about 'New York', something else, to wip-lash the reader again in the third paragraph, which begins, 'The 27th largest U.S. state in land area, New York has a diverse geography . . .' and the forth paragraph, 'New York had been inhabited by tribes of Algonquian and Iroquoian-speaking Native Americans for several hundred years ...'. Keeping, 'New York' for the state, and 'New York City', for the city is just good clear writing. Similar things happen all the time in writing, like in writing about a woman (let's call her Lafroy), whose common last name is the same as her husband, so you write about her and refer to her by her last name ('Lafroy did this. Lafroy did that') and then later you have to introduce her husband: 'She married Peter Lafroy in 1952. Peter was a wholesaler, whom Lafroy met through work.', etc. You have one moniker for one thing and basically stick to that moniker, throughout, so the reader knows, always. There is no reason to use the same name, here, and every good reason to use different names. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I heartily agree with Alan. "New York City" is not uncommon, it is not less correct, and it is not used only for disambiguation purposes in natural language. For arguments sake, would you make the same edits to Oklahoma with regards to Oklahoma City? Or Panama City and Panama? If not, then there is no need to make those edits with regards to New York City and the state of New York. oknazevad (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker:The difference there is that Oklahoma City is called that only, unlike New York; it’s not the same thing. Does Alanscottwalker agree to the "Largest city" and "list of Largest cities" edits to this article. IWI (chat) 11:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. "New York City" is not just a disambiguated "New York". If character reduction is necessary, better to reduce to "NYC" (geolocated from the other side of the planet!). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
”as this name is mostly just a disambiguator” is plain false. “New York City” is a commonly recognised name for the city. Unlike “New York” it is not ambiguous with the state, so what is the benefit? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose mandating any change to one or the other. "New York" and "New York City" should both be equally acceptable, depending on context, either could be acceptable. We should not favor one or the other across the entire project. If context would demand one or the other for a particular usage, go with it. If both are equally acceptable in a particular context, don't change it from what's already there. --Jayron3204:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Support "New York" seems to be the formal name of both the state and city, Google Maps and most of the non-English WPs call it "New York", unlike Oklahoma/Oklahoma City for example. New York City passes WP:COMMONAME and WP:NATURAL but the "City" doesn't seem to be an integral part of the city's name (note the administrative division seems to be "City of New York". If we don't use "New York State" (though that never achieved consensus for the main article) then we probably can also just use "New York" for the city like WP:IRE-IRL uses just "Ireland" for both the island and state where the context is clear (or at least they aren't being discussed together). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose making any changes one way or the other. When discussing the city, both "New York" and "New York City" are equally valid, and there's no compelling reason to change all instances of one to the other. Both names are commonly used enough that neither usage would surprise or confuse the reader. In cases where the State and City are both discussed, the "New York City" form may be preferred, but in other cases, we should feel free to use either form, and make no changes to established usage in an article. If an article is inconsistent in its usage, we should use WP:ENGVAR guidance on harmonizing the usage to the first usage of the term, but otherwise, there's nothing to be gained from making all of Wikipedia use one form or the other. --Jayron3217:06, 22 February 2019 (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.
New York City (2)
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.
Uh? The discussion ran for over a month, and the proposal received unanimous opposition except one person. I don't see what can be gained by continuing the debate. FWIW I did not participate, but I would have opposed as well. — JFGtalk17:51, 23 February 2019 (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.
Now, this table is long enough. Rather than subdividing the Jewish denominations (for which we have no data), perhaps we should lump the lower-than-2% Christian subgroups together with "Other Christian" which would then reach 3%, and call it a day. — JFG talk 03:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Done Castncoot (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It's unclear what you are requesting or suggesting. If you just want the text to be bigger in general, that will probably not be changed, but your web browser should have a zoom function for that purpose. If there is a specific part of the article which you find problematic, please clearly identify it. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
— JFG talk 12:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
— JFG talk 03:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
