User talk:Andrewa/NYRM2018

Anything that doesn't need a sig belongs on the user page. Anything that does belongs here. Welcome! Andrewa (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why this page

This is a page to discuss the foreshadowed RM to decide whether there is a primary topic of New York and if so what it is. Welcome!

If you are New-York-over-it-for-now, don't feel obliged to reply to anything here. It has no formal authority. It's just to prepare for a discussion that will have. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will NYRM2018 take place at all

The closing comments of NYRM2017 certainly indicate it may! Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moratorium

Scope

The scope can't be exhaustive, either on what's in or out, and need not be. It doesn't for example say whether or not I can create new user subpages. Surely that is commonsense? Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

I hope and expect that the next RM will take place in 2018. But several have already suggested 2019.

In previous discussions, one person suggested that NYRM2017 should be deferred until 2028, so that's probably not unexpected!

But in terms of a moratorium, I don't think it matters. The proposers of NYRM2018 will know whether or not they are ready.

The closer of NYRM2017 specifically foreshadowed NYRM2018, saying There were a number of comments that New York should be the title for New York City, both among supporters and opposers, but that, as has been said, is a discussion for another time, but without commenting on the timing.

For the moment, my name for it is NYRM2018. It's just a handle. If it happens in 2019 or doesn't happen at all, that's fine. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title works. Scope this page out in 2018. At the end of 2018, archive it and launch the NY as PT of NYC RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! No personal objection to that timescale, the only reason I'd like it a little shorter is that I expect others to find it more difficult to support such a long time, and that might make the moratorium less effective. Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heads ups

As foreshadowed in User:Andrewa/NYRM2018#Proposed moratorium, I feel that notifying those who have already expressed support for NYRM2018, or do in the future, of this page is legitimate. Any comments disputing this probably belong here, but as it's a possible behavioural issue a heads-up on my primary user talk page is also a very good idea, as I watch that more closely and procedures possibly mandate it. TIA Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent

Whiff of greatness, you expressed a strong preference here and elsewhere for NYC as PT. Hoping to hear from you. Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed

Suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target article

NYRM2018 will propose to change the destination of New York from a DAB as at present to an article on the city of New York.

I do not think this is as simple as some make out. At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

The current New York City article is scoped to the five boroughs. The lead does not explicitly say this, but the population etc figures are for this region, and the lead does say that the city is contained within the State of New York.

However, for the rest of the world the term New York, when applied to the city, is broader than that. And it is the global usage, rather than any local usage, that we seek to determine when we discuss primary topic. This question of local vs global usage has been a key issue throughout the more than a decade of discussions leading up to NYRM2017, in my opinion, and is ongoing.

The arguments for regarding the five boroughs as the primary topic of New York all seem to rely on local usage. I will cite just one example: Look, if you walked around the parking lot of a Giants game at Met Life Stadium and asked every person there "am I in New York right now, not a single person would say yes. It's not even ambiguous. The situation may be different in Manchester or London or Timbuktu. None of that matters. The OP asked if anyone knowledgeable would consider Met Life Stadium in New York. That's not even debatable, to the point where anyone who would argue otherwise has just marked themselves as not knowing how they local geography works. [1]

Many more could be cited, but that says it all. The writer has just marked themselves as not caring what the rest of the world thinks, and as not knowing that it matters what the rest of the world means by New York. It does matter.

(And I have long thought that this attitude was the underlying problem behind the controversy over the title of the New York State article. But we have now solved that one, I hope, and can solve this one too.)

For many people New York means a city larger than the five boroughs, and not completely contained within New York State. The Google I offer in User:Andrewa/NYRM2018#Evidence that gave me more than a quarter of a million ghits for the text string MetLife Stadium in New York seems to me to be a show-stopper regarding the denial of this. Many people do think that New York is bigger than the five boroughs.

So the question is, how many people? What is the common English usage? Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solutions

If there is a problem as I suggest, there are several possible solutions:

Rescope the New York City article. I do not support this.
Rethink NYRM2018 to change the destination of New York to the New York metropolitan area article rather than to the existing NYC article.
Create a broad concept article along the lines of Draft:New York (overview).

And there may be others... suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This issue exists everywhere, not just at the MetLife stadium. "New York" is always just out of reach, a place that isn't quite the same as where you are. As a Brooklynite, I can report that in Brooklyn "New York" means Manhattan. (We also say, "the city," but we rarely call it Manhattan.) If you are in Manhattan (or, really, any place other than Brooklyn), "New York" often means Brooklyn. Whiff of greatness (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point, Whiff of greatness. I merely use the stadium as an example that has some worldwide presence. So... the solution in your opinion? Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The standard test of primary topic is to google "New York" -wikipedia and look at the first page of results. It's a lot of publications with the term "New York" in the title, like the New York Times and the New York Post. These are understood as references to the city. 15:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    - Replying to this incompletely signed post: Agree that these are understood as references to the city, worldwide, and there are many other examples. The whole point of my giving MetLife Stadium as an example is that the New York Giants and New York Jets are both examples of this too.
    - But no, that's not a standard test of primary topic, let alone the standard test, just a common and logical first step in gathering evidence as you have done. Primary topic is a lot more complicated than that. Unfortunately! Andrewa (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous replies to comments at Talk:New York#Which city

Below are replies to this discussion. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem, only your machinations. Sticks and stones.

New York City is a perfectly valid name. Agree.

WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TIES will keep the City article there forever. No need to invoke IAR. You'll need as much luck as finding a needle in a haystack to ever change that status quo. A little while ago you were saying that Wikipedia would be irreparably damaged by what is now the status quo. We will see whether this prediction is any more accurate. It may well be. There is room for improvement. (;->

But it raises two interesting points. WP:TIES seems to me to have been implicitly rejected by NYRM2017. New York belongs to the world, not just the locals. The other is, I'm not advocating a move, not yet at least, and may never do so. All I'm advocating here is a formal discussion in a year's time (or more). And I'm inviting others to brainstorm it in the meantime, if they wish, under a promise that I won't regard it as in any way binding.

Agree that WP:COMMONNAME is relevant. But that means the global common name. and as we have (finally) established in NYRM2017, local usage does not override this. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Castncoot on this: New York City should and will remain the exact title of the city article. I also don't think the city is primary,... That's a question for another time, exactly as the NYRM2017 closer said.

...and this question should not be addressed until Summer 2018 at the earliest. Agree that it should not be decided now. Why this is still being discussed at talk:New York is a puzzle to me. Andrewa (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. NYC is a better title for the city article because it clarifies the scope to the reader and makes links-to-dab easier for editors to spot. I think this dab is the best destination for New York, but could be persuaded that it should become a primary redirect to NYC. I think we should discuss that change in 12 months but I won't complain if it's 18. Agree with most of this (with one reservation that I'll raise elsewhere). Well put. Andrewa (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise agree. Another discussion is incredibly premature, and there is no reason to ever move the city's article. Again, you seem to want it both ways. Either discuss it now or don't.

With that said, I think, Andrew, that you're stuck on an ephemeral idea of "New York" meaning the broader metro area... I respect your opinion on my mental processes, but I think it's baseless and inaccurate speculation and unhelpful, frankly.

...when that is informal usage at most and hardly unique to New York. All articles on major cities describe to a certain extent how their influence extends into the nearby areas and how infrastructure and such in those areas are linked to the city as a hub. But they also strongly note the distinct legal and political identity of the city government, along with the physical geography and demographics within its boundaries. In short, I think you're trying to make a distinction without a difference for New York City, one that not only doesn't exist for NYC, but doesn't exist for any major city. In English it is common to refer to a metro area by the main city's name. But it's still informal usage. Raises some interesting points.

Plenty of time to discuss them. Agree. Andrewa (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York City equals the five boroughs. Period. End. of. story. Agree. Andrewa (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No period. No end of story. Review historiography. We now are just the now part of the story. The boroughs are only post 1898. See Boroughs of New York City. It is well enough covered, but there are always border disputes. See Sixth borough. Fascinating ideas, but unsure they help.

You are joking, I'm sure. Jersey City may like to consider itself a sixth borough, but it is not in fact. I'm finding it surreal that we're apparently in an environment where it's OK to make people believe that 2+2=6. There are these little inconvenient entities known as facts. Maybe in some future time warp this may change, but in the present time, 2+2=4. Period. End. of. story. More sticks and stones IMO.

Joking. New York is is divided into five boroughs. But what happens if a new island pops ou just on the outside, and then connects? Governors Island? Is see that the "New York is is divided into five boroughs" line is preserved by defining Governors Island as part of Manhatten Island. In 1700, New York was not divided into five boroughs. Yes I am joking. Your are talking about now. Unhelpful IMO.

I will take up the charge of machinations on the NY talk page where it was made. I am a little appalled that others appear to support it. Andrewa (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These others have all now clarified that their support for the post in question did not include the charge of machinations. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality in article titles

Some comments on this discussion which makes some very important points.

Should not our articles seek to educate people on reality, and not merely confirm their misconceptions, regardless of how many people hold those misconceptions? Reality is not subject to the results of polls Agree and excellent point.

But this discussion is about article titles, not about article content. Of course both title and content should reflect reality! But the reality our content (ideally!) reflects is that of the world, while our titles reflect current English usage, which is not always logical.

This is a very subtle point and a common cause of controversy, and I'm not sure I agree with the current policy. But we either need to follow the policy or come up with a strong enough consensus to invoke IAR and make an exception to policy (and perhaps even change it in the fullness of time). Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and while it is good that there was finally some reference to sources, although no attention paid to reliable, the sources in that search do not support the claim, they explicitly and directly say it is in New Jersey. This cuts to the very heart of the matter.

Unfortunately it's not said exactly which sources are being cited here. The search in question was this one which returned 209,000 results as stated at the time, and now gives me 212,000 and I cannot believe that anyone has looked at them all as the comment above would imply on a naive reading.

But let us just consider the (unlikely) case that all of them explicitly and directly say it is in New Jersey as claimed. There's no doubt that some of them do, perhaps even most. But they all also use the phrase "MetLife Stadium in New York", which was the search term. What is going on?

It's very simple and obvious. Metlife Stadium is in both New Jersey (the State) and New York (the city). That is exactly the point that the search was supporting. And it does. And that is reality! Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you are meaning, which I was attempting to put in words in the above quote from me above but didn't quite have the words for. Here you are using "city" in the sense of conurbation. That's not standard usage, I'm sorry to say. oknazevad (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. When I say New York (the city) to contrast to New Jersey (the State) and New York (the State), it's possible that New York (the city) here means the conurbation also known as New York... perhaps we should call it the tristate for clarity.

But my phrasing is deliberately ambiguous. So it's not true that I'm using "city" in the sense of conurbation. I'm using city to contrast to state, and to include all the possible meanings of city here, which IMO include conurbation in the case of New York.

So whether my phrasing is standard usage is not relevant, I'm not sorry to say. Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of ambiguity

And I'm a bit surprised that anybody would assume you mean the five boroughs when you say New York (unlike New York, New York which is explicit). Agree that the Manchester example is a good one.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're surprised. But again, I think that may have to do with differing usage and jurisdictional realities betwee the US and Australia. "Sydney" is assumed to include areas outside the City of Sydney, and is kinda fuzzy in what exactly it's boundaries are. Not the case with NYC or London, which have distinct political boundaries and a single mayor over the whole city.

Just as an aside, I wouldn't necessarily say that the NYC article is strictly limited in scope to the city proper, as it does mention many things that are in suburban locations. By "suburban"; I mean municipalities that are within the metro area but politically separate from the city at the municipal level, as is typical in American usage, as opposed to it being a catch-all term for residential areas, as I understand is the Australian usage. Likewise, Americans typically use a stricter definition of "city" to indicate municipal boundaries when describing the location of something, which likely has to do with mailing addresses as anything else.

So one wouldn't say MetLife Stadium is in New York as it doesn't have a New York mailing address. Conversely, one might say T-Mobile Arena is in Las Vegas, even though it's outside the incorporated with limits, because it has a Las Vegas mailing address (the Vegas mailing address includes all of the former Las Vegas Township, which included the city proper and now-unincorporated areas like Paradise, Nevada). Funnily enough, and to keep it in discussions about stadiums, when the Atlanta Braves opened their new ballpark, SunTrust Park, this year, they arranged for it to wind up with an Atlanta mailing address, even though it's actually a cross the county line in suburban DeKalb County. Mailing addresses have significant caché in the US.

More evidence that New York is still highly ambiguous even when it refers to the city, IMO. See also #Rescoping the NYC article. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rescoping the NYC article

Just as an aside, I wouldn't necessarily say that the NYC article is strictly limited in scope to the city proper, as it does mention many things that are in suburban locations. By "suburban"; I mean municipalities that are within the metro area but politically separate from the city at the municipal level, as is typical in American usage, as opposed to it being a catch-all term for residential areas, as I understand is the Australian usage. Likewise, Americans typically use a stricter definition of "city" to indicate municipal boundaries when describing the location of something, which likely has to do with mailing addresses as anything else.

I have said elsewhere that I oppose rescoping the NYC article, but this and other comments in that section (which I'll identify in time) suggests to me that its current scope needs some clarification. Still oppose major rescoping. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB Whiff of greatness above

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner expecting that this C-banned user will return to NY article in future socks, so a heads up. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk)

Thank you! They are now indeffed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive#28 August 2017 and User:Whiff of greatness. Shit attracts flies. Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]