User:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York
 | Obsoleted by NYRM2017, where sanity finally prevailed, and User:Andrewa/NYRM2018. Kept for historical reasons. |
Please provide a diff for any quotation from talk pages. Feel free to check these diffs to see the context of the original.
See also User:Andrewa/New York post RM 2016 and its talk page. The difference is, those pages look back and this one and its talk page look forward. But there's a great deal of scope for overlap.
Next RM
[edit]Format and rationale
[edit]An RfC recently found consensus that New York State is not the primary topic of New York. The policy at WP:ATDAB reads in part If the topic is not primary, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated. (my emphasis) The article on New York State cannot therefore be at the base name. New York (state) is the disambiguated article title most consistent with practice both in the US and internationally, and avoids the possible ambiguity of New York State. New York should become a primary redirect to New York City.
Discussion
[edit]The latest RM, held before the RfC that found consensus that NYS is not the primary topic, closed in the most ambiguous manner possible. One of the three panelists found no consensus but implied that the move case was stronger, just not strong enough. The second found consensus to move, on the grounds of both policy and harm. Much later, the third (in the longest of the three verdicts) then also found no consensus but that the move arguments were overwhelmingly more cogent and systematically better based in policy, that the oppose arguments were quite unconvincing, and that the current situation is a glaring and damaging error. The overall verdict was then called by the first panelist as no consensus.
It should be noted that while some oppose !voters strongly asserted that NYS was the primary topic of New York (hence the RfC), others conceded that it was not.
The first (overturned in favour of relisting) close of the 2016 RM found consensus that parenthetical disambiguation was preferred to natural in the case of New York State, and this has not been disputed since.
While the most recent RM eventually closed in a highly ambiguous fashion, on the positive side it did show that there is no possibility of consensus to move either the DAB page or the article on New York City. New York should therefore become a primary redirect to New York City, a possibility raised and rejected by the original proposer of the July 2016 RM but not further discussed there or in its relisting.
Explanatory notes
[edit]Things that might come up in discussion.
Ambiguity of New York State
[edit]- Washington State is a DAB.
- Georgia State and Iowa State point to universities.
US and international use of (state)
[edit]See #The move target.
Timing
[edit]See User talk:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York#Next RM timing.
Closing
[edit]See User talk:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York#Next RM closing.
Progress towards it
[edit]Things that have already happened that prepare the way.
Move format
[edit]The option of moving neither the DAB nor the NYC article, but instead making New York a primary redirect was not offered in the latest RM, and seems to have a better chance of consensus.
So this is a significantly different RM, based on what was learned last time.
The possibility of a primary redirect (although not by that name) was raised by the proposer of the RM June 2016, in the following terms: Another option, instead of New York as a disambiguation page, is to redirect it to New York City, although I am opposed to it. [1]
Primary topic
[edit]The relevance of primary topic was disputed. The policy is clear, but is perhaps clearer on primary redirects than on DAB page titles. This has been raised on several talk pages, most notably WT:AT, where a previously uninvolved editor strongly suggested that New York was available as a title for NYS because the title New York was not required for the NYC article. A new essay at WP:SIMPLEDAB seeks to clarify.
It was claimed that NYS was the primary topic of New York, or that there was no consensus as to this. We now have established at an RFC that there is consensus that NYS is not the primary topic.
The no consensus clause
[edit]Now raised at WT:consensus.
Behaviour
[edit]One of the more aggressive contributors was mentioned at WP:ANI, where consensus was that the post in question was an unacceptable personal attack.
Many other personal attacks did take place in the last RM, but were not even raised on user talk pages. A more proactive approach might lead to a cleaner discussion.
One other now raised on their user talk page.
The move target
[edit]New York State and New York (state) both already redirect to the state article, so both would be available. Only two US state names are currently disambiguated, those of Washington (state) and Georgia (US State), so New York (state) has consistency on its side. However natural disambiguation as in New York State is generally preferred. This was not possible for the other two as neither is the primary topic of the possible title, with Washington State and Georgia State both redirecting to disambiguation pages.
Internationally, New York (state) is the more consistent article title. Some or all of the first-level administrative subdivisions of several other countries are called states in English; These include at least Austria, Australia, Germany, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Palau and Sudan, and that list might even be exhaustive.
- In Malaysia and Palau no state names are disambiguated.
- In Austria, Germany and Mexico parenthetical disambiguation with (state) is used consistently where necessary.
- In Sudan parenthetical disambiguation with (state) is used where necessary except for Northern state, Sudan, which should be questioned.
- In Nigeria every state name is naturally disambiguated, such as Abia State, see Category:States of Nigeria. This was decided at a very lively discussion at Talk:Abia State#Requested move 6 May 2016. Closer urged a further RM for states which do not require disambiguation, noting no consensus on that; This RM has not yet occurred. Proponents of current names noted The Nigerian states were created between 1967 and 1996, named after a city, river, emirate, ethnic group etc.. People call them "XYZ State" to distinguish from the XYZ city, river etc. We should follow modern English usage for article titles. Evidence was produced that the state names are normally XYZ State as claimed.
- In Australia only Victoria (Australia) is disambiguated, with Victoria (state) redirecting there. There have been two RMs to move to Victoria (state), the first was very messy but the second formed a consensus not to move. It should be noted that this latest RM was defeated based at least partly on examples of other countries that use parenthetical disambiguators other than (state).
Outstanding issues
[edit]The circular no consensus to move argument (see #The No Consensus clause). Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Default outcome of no consensus is an unrelated but relevant discussion. (Now raised there.)
The claim that the NYS article already covers NYC, either as a BCA or per the HLJC or per WP:TOP.
Behavior in general. As well as personal attacks, there has been rhetoric, hyperbole and possibly gaming the system.
One of the panel at the last RM asked for much stronger arguments. Another criticised both sides for the lack of evidence.
The question of local expertise. Several contributors have suggested, sometimes rather aggressively, that the question should be decided by the locals rather than ignorant outsiders.
Related issues
[edit]Primary topic
[edit]What is it
[edit]I'm glad to reaffirm that there is no consensus that New York State is not the primary topic. 24 September 2016 [2]
...consensus indicates that New York State is not the primary topic for the title "New York". Closing RfC 29 September 2016 [3]
Ignore that result, and perhaps consider redoing it in an honestly unbiased manner. 30 September 2016 [4]
- I'm not concerned here, MJ. It's actually a favorable ruling, read the fine print. 1 October 2016 [5]
Does it matter
[edit]Should a DAB never be at the base name
[edit]In a number of RMs, including but not only NY, it's been suggested that a DAB should never be at the base name. This proposed principle however appears to be contrary to both policy and the DAB guideline.
Arguments suggesting or presupposing this as a principle
[edit]- It's better to send readers to content they're seeking than sending everyone to a dead end. (specific reference to this RM removed) ... putting the dab page at the base name is an unnecessary roadblock... [6]
Policy and guidelines opposing this principle
[edit]- WP:ATDIS (a policy): As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia: If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies; If the topic is not primary, the ambiguous name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated. (my punctuation and emphasis)
The No Consensus clause
[edit]"If there is no consensus to move, then there should be no move." Now I agree with this. The problem is purely in the way in which consensus to move is assessed. In particular, we cannot assume that there is no consensus in order to decide whether or not there is consensus. That would be circular reasoning. In order to decide whether this clause is relevant, we need first to assess consensus (provisionally perhaps) without relying on this clause itself. Unfortunately, the current policy and guidelines do not make this clear. [7]
The argument in question was put at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#There is no consensus to move the New York page and rightly dismissed as it's not for you to judge... but it kept coming back again and again. The diff above is an answer to just one of these reappearances. However there was no appeal to it at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Oppose. It is not clear whether it was considered a valid argument by any of the closers.
Playing for draw
[edit]There are possible behavioural issues, see
- User:Andrewa/Playing for draw
- wp:Gaming the system (I thought this was an essay, but it's actually a behavioural guideline) Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.
Avoiding the Condorcet paradox
[edit]Ownership
[edit]Past discussions on NY
[edit]Please order chronologically, oldest first, and indent as seems helpful