Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion

Why this page

It has been suggested that we need an expression of exactly what this criterion is (here for just one example). This essay is the place to develop that. This talk page is the place to discuss it.

I'd particularly like comments here as to whether the phrasing in the nutshell (Other things being equal, where two geographical, political or judicial subject areas have the same name, and one is a subset of the other, the larger subject area should be regarded as the primary topic.) can be improved, and I'd like others to write a rationale.

But of course all pages belong to the project. Be bold. Andrewa (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevant discussions

Please link here to other relevant discussions. Wikilinks are acceptable but permalinks and diffs are more explicit and will remain useful for longer. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Talk:New York (state)#Requested move 9 June 2016 and subsequent talk page discussion
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 June#New York (state)
• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#higher-level jurisdiction criterion

More to follow. Andrewa (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Established use for small towns and villages

It seems that the HLJC has been adopted in some areas, although not by that name...

...this principle is widely used at the town/village level. In New York, for example, there are dozens of towns that contain a "village" of the same name... [1]

and this was discussed at some length, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/New York villages within towns for the archived discussion. Andrewa (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Heads ups

This section is in the interests of transparency, and to avoid any appearance or canvassing. Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:wbm1058, you suggested A more precise definition of this criterion needs to be hashed out. [2] Contributions here and to the essay welcome to that effect! Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Castncoot, you have appealed to the HLJC at some length. Your input here would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Rationale

I would suggest that the primary rationale for HLJC is that the HLJ is not "wrong". If I say "Joe is from New York", and it happens that Joe is from New York City, then it is not wrong to say that Joe is from the state of New York, and not likely to cause confusion as to where Joe is from. bd2412 T 01:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The HLJC is valid for the above reason quoted by editor bd2412, again with the caveat that one geopolitical jurisdiction is a direct subset of another. But in the case of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 June#New York (state), the New York City article is actually a direct progeny of the New York article as it is classified as part of the Regions of New York series, which in fact calls for the HLJC criterion to be actively invoked as to entitling the New York State article as "New York". Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what this means... can you rephrase? Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've had a go at putting this into the essay [3]... How have I done? Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you did a great job. I've made a small adjustment: [4] Castncoot (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And to clarify my earlier statement on this Talk page, I believe that HLJC carries a higher level of significance than usage alone, as it carries an element of timelessness versus the element of volatility embodied by usage. Castncoot (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

There's something to be said for it, certainly. It makes sense. But it's not what we've agreed to do in the past. Maybe it's been done anyway, our practice doesn't always follow our formal conventions!

I'm skeptical that we will get consensus for it, but I think this should be tested... and the first step to that is getting a clear statement of what the principle really is, IMO. Nor am I convinced that it's any improvement on the existing criteria. But if we do get consensus that it's important enough to outrank usage (even in certain restricted cases, say) then I'll certainly go along with this new naming convention. Andrewa (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This criterion is not supported by precedent

As I've said at the New York RM a couple of times, "Higher-Level Jurisdiction" has been frequently used there and in other places, and in general over the years has been rejected as a valid criterion. In particular, Leeds; Honolulu; Carlisle, Cumbria; Lhasa; and I'm sure other places as well are all "subentities" of "higher level jurisdictions" of the same names, but take primary topic because the urban centre is what people understand by the name. In other cases, such as Washington, D.C./Washington (state) and Georgia (country)/Georgia (U.S. state) there have been various attempts over the years to assert that due to "higher level jurisdiction" of a country compared to a US state, and also a US state compared to a city, that Georgia (country) should be Georgia and Washington (state) should be Washington. Consensus has never favoured those or other moves predicated on HLJC, which means it's basically an invalid criterion and I oppose any move to make it one, partiucularly as this appears to be an attempt to influence a specific move request at New York that was recently closed. Pages for PTOPIC should be assessed on common usage, long term significance, and plausible search target only. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, Amakuru (talk), you repeatedly seem to refuse to acknowledge the point that Washington, D.C. is mutually exclusive of Washington State and that the nation of Georgia is mutually exclusive of the U.S. state of Georgia, almost as if this was never pointed out to you. If you read the premise of the article carefully, it specifically mandates that one entity must be a geopolitical subentity of another. HLJC indeed supports long-term significance by adding a level of timelessness to the equation, versus mere usage criteria which carries inherent volatility. And yes, we need to create precedent to fill a vacuum that exists. Castncoot (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Castncoot: I mention those cases because HLJ has been suggested several times as a motive for changing the status quo, or (in the case of Washington) for retaining the previous status quo. Perhaps you are using the term only to refer to entities within another entity, but a look at Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_7#Move_request and Talk:Washington_(state)/Archive_2#Requested_move shows that some believe states are always primary over cities, and that countries are always primary over states.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed talking only about geopolitical subentities, which by definition will have less area of geography and less population than the inclusive whole. So this throws out previous discussions, which did not consider the premise of this feature being a critical component. HLJC (when defined this way) also provides organizational structure. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, so geography also counts, even if much of it may be rural, mountainous, forested, or whatever else; it's not all about population and human impact. Going further, if, as in the case of New York, the subentity is Wikipedically defined to be a progeny of the larger geopolitical jurisdiction, as New York City (as seen underneath its own infobox!!) is classified as one of the Regions of New York, then my personal opinion is that HLJC really should trump all other factors, including the volatile metric of usage. The bigger point though here, Amakuru, is that at the very least, HLJC (again, defined to be present only when one geopolitical jurisdiction is a direct subentity of another) should be considered as one among other legitimate criteria in determining primary status. That's what this discussion is about, not to cede HLJC supreme importance. I think that any reasonable person would agree with this common sense statement. Castncoot (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess that I must not be a reasonable person then, because I don't agree with you :) As I see it, New York City is far more than just a region of New York state. It is the world's number one global city by most research done on the subject, the largest city and largest metro area in the whole of the United States, seat of the United Nations, etc. etc. but you reckon it's simply a sub-article of the state it resides in, and ranking alongside Finger Lakes in importance and prestige, since both are regions of New York. The HLJC may apply for some cases, such as Belize vs Belize City, but in any case where it applies, the PTOPIC situation will also be obvious anyway. HLJC just makes no sense to me as a blanket policy that ignores the reality of what people are likely to be searching for (which is the ultimate goal of PTOPIC anyway).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Amakuru, I'd be very interested in any previous discussions in which the HLJC has been explicitly rejected as a valid criterion. But I agree with you completely, and thank you for the examples... very relevant, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As in ordinary speech, the term "New York" is ambiguous and needs disambiguation where context does not already accomplish this. There is absolutely no primacy of usage here; both meanings are extremely frequent. HGilbert (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This criterion is highly supported by precedent on the township/village level. Where there are numerous townships that contain a tiny "village of" by the same name, it is impractical to disambiguate between people being "from" the township, or "from" the village contained therein. Usually there is no source providing a useful distinction. In every such case, a person "from" the village is also "from" the township encompassing the village. bd2412 T 19:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Progeny" articles

The term progeny has been mentioned several times in related discussions, here is just the latest example, this is perhaps a better one.

Should the HLJC page mention this concept? It seems very closely related and is not mentioned anywhere else in the project namespace as far as I can see. Exactly what is meant by a progeny article? (User:Castncoot possibly best qualified to respond, but all ideas are welcome.) Andrewa (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa (talk) - basically the direct inverse of a parent article, with all entailed by that designation. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

OK... so we now need to nail down exactly what a parent article is.

You see New York State as the parent article of New York City, is that right? Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that a true parent/progeny article relationship has been established when the parent articles forks off the progeny article as a main article in section, while the inverse would not make logical sense to occur. In this case, the State article spawns off the City article in this manner, but it would make no logical sense for the inverse to occur, and in fact, it does not do so. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sydney and New South Wales bear a smilar relationship; note that the state, which may be less "famous" than the city subjectively, nevertheless contains the Blue Mountains, Newcastle, and other notable geographical and metropolitan features – in addition to Sydney. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A test of "progeny" and possibly of HLJC application

From the above: I believe that a true parent/progeny article relationship has been established when the parent articles forks off the progeny article as a main article in section, while the inverse would not make logical sense to occur. [5]

While I think we may be able to improve the exact wording, this seems to me to be a fairly clear test... the sort of clarity I have been seeking here and in the essay. It's a far easier test to apply than either of the existing primary topic tests of significance and usage.

So, should it be added to the essay? How exactly? I may have a go when I get time, but other attempts welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've now had a go. [6] Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Broad-concept articles

This topic seems closely related to the concept of a broad-concept article.

There a sense in which it treats all affected parent articles as broad-concept articles.

This is why I suggested in connection to the New York discussions that perhaps a useful compromise would be to have a broad concept article at the base name New York.

The suggestion hasn't been well received so far! It has however been included in the new RM at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. Andrewa (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Bigger is better

There's a related post at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Usage by New Yorkers, NYS > NYC that reads in part This shouldn't really need saying, but the population, economy, and culture of New York State is rather larger even than New York City, because the city is of course a subset of the state. [7]

User:Pharos, this seems both another rationale for, and an application of, the HLJC, just in different language. Should it be mentioned on this page? How? Andrewa (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Counterexamples

I think that the criterion is misguided, and therefore not useful at all in article title discussions. There are numerous counterexamples where the subset political unit is the clear WP:PRIMARY topic of the two. The situation usually emerges when a traditional historical city, a regional center for hundreds of years, becomes a center of an new, eponymous administrative division carved out of the larger area surrounding it. Examples are not too difficult to find:

• Salzburg ⊂ Salzburg (state)
• São Paulo ⊂ São Paulo (state) (courtesy of Amakuru, IIRC)
• Zürich ⊂ Canton of Zürich
• Geneva ⊂ Canton of Geneva
• Madrid ⊂ Community of Madrid
• Kiev ⊂ Kiev Oblast
• Los Angeles ⊂ Los Angeles County, California

etc. etc. etc. The "all things being equal" clause in the proposal does not help much – first, it is generally not easy to determine whether the common name of a "province de Foo" is "Foo", "Foo province" or "Province of Foo" in English, as the usage depends on the context; second, what metrics of "all things equal" are editors supposed to apply when deciding on a title? Sorry, but I think that the proposal is a dead end. No such user (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In fact, you just gave it a new, full, long, prosperous life! You see, now that the larger geopolitical entities have taken on a singular, legal life of their own, they now supersede the contained cities within them and have taken over primary topic status at this point – for the simple reason that the larger administrative regions contain other geographic and humanly impacting attributes – as well as those aforementioned cities. Castncoot (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that you use a random number generator to pick words from a dictionary to write these posts (there are some computer programs that do this, developed for serious linguistic research but also fun to play with... and there have been some scandals of poetry written using them winning prizes, essays getting HDs, etc.).

But parts of that post are quite unintelligible to me, as have been many others. Have any others had this feeling? Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please analyze your own remarks for intelligibility before castigating others' comments, Andrewa. And I'll request you once more, please stick to the topic at hand. Castncoot (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my comments unintelligible, can you be specific?

For my part, geographic and humanly impacting attributes was the term I found puzzling in the last post. I've seen such phrasing in official documents... modelling the desired behavioural outcomes is what the New South Wales Department of Education now calls what we used to call setting a good example. (;-> But that at least is against a background of many staff training days using this terminology (which have now also been renamed to avoid the acronym STD - no I'm not kidding). I've found some of the terminology in your posts so obscure that I have seriously wondered whether you were using a parody generator to help write it.

This is of course against the background of previous discussion, most recently at User talk:Castncoot#Further disruption. I'm glad it's unintentional. Best. Andrewa (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There are many other examples that show how unhelpful the proposed criterion is... Tamworth, New South Wales is contained within the Electoral district of Tamworth, and in some contexts Tamworth means the electorate, but even if these were the only two contenders for the title Tamworth there is no way the electoral district would be the primary topic. Probably more people know of the Tamworth Music Festival then are even aware that the electoral district exists (despite Tony Windsor).

But at least now we know more clearly what the proposal is, and can discuss it rationally... sort of... Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a page full of examples of cities located within counties of the same name, including Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, etc. All of these would have to be changed to point to the county in which they are embedded were this standard to be accepted. Clean Copy^talk 12:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, awesome link! Andrewa (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The "option" option

I think that one viable solution to put this discussion to rest for the future would be to adopt the HLJC as a completely viable option. In other words, not mandate it, but make it a legitimate option. This would avoid exerting unintended domino effects upon other articles. Castncoot (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to see how this would improve things. It's likely to make consensus harder to achieve... Oh, I see. That's the whole idea, isn't it? Andrewa (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And now from Talk:New York: [8] The underlying, irreconciliable dilemma as I see it here seems to be culturally rooted and has schisms simply too wide and deep to bridge or eliminate. Therefore, just as British English and American English co-exist peacefully in Wikipedia, why not entertain the viable solution of adopting the HLJC as a completely viable option? It appears that there is indeed significant support for HLJC, but that those who oppose it (and support a move) don't want it forced upon them. In other words, we could exercise the option of not mandating it, but making it a legitimate option. This would avoid exerting unintended domino effects upon other articles. I can't see a problem with this. Isn't having more legitimate options better than having fewer? (my emphasis) Only if you wish to avoid building consensus. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it would simply create an additional legitimate option. Nobody would be forced to use it in any given article, but the option becomes officially viable. Castncoot (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The option is officially viable today, you just need everybody to agree to WP:Ignore all rules. That would imply convincing your fellow editors that such arrangement is an improvement to the encyclopedia, though. Diego (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And you don't think that would complicate things? Especially as one of our panel in the most recent New York RM has already speculated that we may have a Condorcet paradox situation?

You say nope, but the rest of the post seems to me to indicate yep. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be very afraid of allowing this to even be an option. Why is that? (Especially when you were the one who started this essay article, lol!) My desire to build consensus is what in fact inspired me to give this another, fresh look. People supporting a move of "New York" cite as their main reason that the longstanding status quo somehow violates Wikipedia policy of primary topic. (I disagree, but that's not the point here.) Well, if that's really their primary objection, then they shouldn't have any problem at all with a policy that optionally acknowledges the reasonability of NYS being the primary topic for "New York" (and again, read the actual policy proposal on this essay page as written - "may be regarded" - it's actually very softly stated) – while at the same time exerting absolutely no effect on whether Sao Paulo city or state is primary, for example. Again, I want to emphasize the optionality of the concept. Castncoot (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, not very afraid. But it is true that I am opposed to the instruction creep you are proposing.

As has been pointed out above by Diego, this proposal doesn't add anything helpful. The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed, and it has been attempted in the case of New York, by yourself and a (very) few others, with no success.

In other cases it has been successfully followed, see #Established use for small towns and villages above.

But I commend your desire to build consensus. My suggestion would be, rather than this rather vague and confusing proposal, see what the successful arguments were for the small towns and villages in the archived discussions linked to above. Then propose something along those lines. Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good. Glad that you now newly acknowledge that "The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed,..." Now it will be quoted as a nod toward a reasonable guideline usable toward building consensus in arguments going forward. Castncoot (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that you think this is something I've newly acknowledged. Glad you think it worth quoting. Andrewa (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent mentions

It astonishes me, but people are still appealing to the HLJC as if it had consensus support. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York&diff=prev&oldid=737070582 is just one recent example. It doesn't link to this page, perhaps for obvious reasons, but it should. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It has broad support, if not consensus, so it is a valid point to discuss, support, and use in any argument toward building consensus. It's a broad concept. Maybe you should create a broad-concept article for this! Castncoot (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Deprecation notice

The so-called "HLJC criterion" was an attempt by Andrewa to find common ground with Castncoot in the long-winded debates about the meaning of "New York". As the discussion of this proposal petered out into impracticality (both here and at Talk:New York and friends) I inserted a deprecation notice on August 13, which remained unchallenged for over a month. Today Castncoot removed it and I reverted him. Happy to discuss whether this essay has indeed any chance of being adopted as a valid WP:PT criterion. Based on numerous discussions and counter-examples, I say "not a snowball's chance in Hell". — JFG ^talk 16:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I note that User:JFG and User:Castncoot have each reverted twice as I write, so under the 3RR policy there is still some wiggle-room. I also note that only JFG has attempted discussion so far.

I think that the notice is helpful and reasonable. Something like it is a very good idea, in view of the lack of support the HLJC has received and the strength of the past appeals to it. There is a significant risk of further such appeals.

It might even be worth including something in WP:AT and/or WP:PT specifically noting that the HLJC by whatever name is not a factor to be considered in article name discussions. Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not true that only JFG has attempted discussion so far. I've left valid edit summaries and I've been offline for some time. JFG's initial deprecation flag was placed in August. Much has happened (and evolved) since then, rendering such deprecation (even further) invalid at this time. Everyone already knows that an essay is not the same as policy. Andrewa, you have yourself acknowledged on this page that HLJC has been used in certain instances ("In other cases it has been successfully followed, see #Established use for small towns and villages above"), not using this term per se, and that nothing stops one from trying to use it as a plausible factor toward building consensus. It's up to other editors to accept such reasoning or not, but one can't simply ban the use of an argument in trying to build consensus – that's ridiculous, and I would never abide by a dictatorially abusive (and silly) rule like that. The deprecation flag needs to come off, as it's already clear that this is an essay and not (yet) consensused policy. Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you see that BD2412 has offered some support for this above on this talk page, under the Rationale section? And you want to deprecate this? That's beyond absurd. Really, that deprecation flag is destructive and needs to come down pronto. Castncoot (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Andrewa, I cannot fathom that someone would resort to using underhanded tactics as the above, "and the strength of the past appeals to it. There is a significant risk of further such appeals", especially so after saying, "The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed,...". I'm actually flabbergasted that you (or anyone) would resort to anything nearly as reprehensible as this in specifically trying to undermine the move-oppose side's argument at the discussion regarding the base name New York. Castncoot (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm interested in User:Alanscottwalker's view of that post, in view of his comments on WP:NPA in a related discussion. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting User:BD2412. Interested in his opinion on that. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that there are circumstances where a rule like this is useful, particularly where both jurisdictions are small and obscure. That is not an absolute restriction, however. bd2412 T 12:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I do recall you saying exactly that before. User:Castncoot, is that what you mean by some support for this? Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

An edit summary is no substitute for discussion. As I said, you haven't broken the bright line rule, but on the second revert it would be good to start a discussion on the talk page as JFG has done. The rest of that post could be summarised "I don't like it". We all know that. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop diverting from the act you've committed, Andrewa. You were actually trying to wipe out an entire argument (from Wikipedia!) which you knew was gaining some powerful traction – "and the strength of the past appeals to it. There is a significant risk of further such appeals", especially so after saying, "The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed,...". You were attempting to commit this act of subterfuge specifically to undermine the "New York" move-oppose side's resurrection of this after the end of the impending moratorium on the RM discussion for the base name New York. This is what you meant on the Talk:New York/July 2016 move request closure page when you said, "And I certainly intend to lay groundwork for a possible next RM." And you did it on this page at a time when I told you I was going to be offline for a while, thinking it would be a longer while and that you could do this unnoticed. Did you really think that I and others wouldn't catch this? What you've effectively done, I strongly believe, is to engage in corruption and conspiracy. User:JFG is complicit in this. I cannot believe that you both would actually try to stop an argument from being rendered and presented to other editors to be adjudicated on its own merits. I've lost respect for you as an administrator, and now even respect for the position itself. Admins are supposed to set exemplary role models for behavior on Wikipedia, at least I thought as much. I believe that you should resign your position as an administrator immediately or have it forcibly stripped from you. I don't know if JFG is also an admin, but if so, he should endure the same sanction. Castncoot (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I request that you either pursue this allegation of my improper behaviour through the appropriate channels, or withdraw it.

User:JFG is not an admin, but has been granted some of the tools. Again, you only had to look. Andrewa (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Back online here. I think you are missing the point here. I am not "alleging" your conduct here. I am actually telling you what you've done on this very page. It's up to other readers who may happen to see this to decide how to interpret these statements. I'm not interested in the least in policing your behavior as an admin. That's for you to maintain the proper integrity to do yourself. And obviously there's nothing to withdraw here, as this page is centrally connected to the matter. Asking me to withdraw such content amounts to a cover-up and subterfuge on its own, which I will not engage in. Castncoot (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back. Please respond at WP:ANI#Allegations by User:Castncoot as advised on your user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

All other editors, please read wp:string if you have not already done so. Following the indenting convention is quite simple really and very helpful, and most people do it without even needing to read the help page, as it reflects the standard threading convention used on most of the rest of the Internet and comes naturally to most of us. Conversely, failing to do so is disruptive even if unintentional. I've raised this on user:Castncoot's talk page several times now but fear it is a lost cause there. TIA Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Back to the issue

The question still is, should we have a deprecation notice, and what should it say? The notice as it currently [9] stands applies to the essay, not to the wider application of the principle (which the essay does not cover).

It seems entirely appropriate if a bit wordy! There is no consensus for its removal. Andrewa (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the notice never had consensus in the first place. Somehow it slipped through the cracks unnoticed for a brief matter of weeks. I'm sure you as the creator of this essay didn't intend upon creating a essay just to be deprecated shortly thereafter, would you have? Castncoot (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Time the essay was under construction, not marked: from 3 July to 13 August = 1 month and 10 days. Time between my deprecation notice and your first revert: from 13 August to 24 September = a month and 11 days. Looks pretty even. If you felt so strongly against the deprecation, you had plenty of time to argue against the notice then, and/or to actually work with your fellow editors to improve the essay, which to this day remains unclear and unusable. — JFG ^talk 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

BD2412, is there consensus for this deprecation flag to remain up on the essay page? I'm trying to avoid an edit war here. It was put up there without consensus in the first place. The discussion toward the bottom of this page suggests that various editors support elements of this evolving page with an evolving discussion, at the very least. (Several other editors expressed support for the concept on the "New York" move-related discussion pages as well.) How by definition can this page be deprecated then, especially when an editor placed the flag up without consensus in the first place (and I believe, successfully unnoticed by many (including myself))? Castncoot (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem with asserting that the notice was preserved because nobody noticed (hah!) is a case of Warnock's dilemma: it may well be that everybody noticed and silently agreed, or even that nobody cares. — JFG ^talk 22:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend for it to be deprecated, but I think at this stage the notice we have is far better than nothing. There is AFAIK no consensus anywhere that it should be cited in move discussions.

There is a view that it's useful in very restricted circumstances, and even some evidence that it is already followed in these circumstances. This is real progress! But these circumstances are not yet described in the essay. They should be.

There is also a possibility that we might rescope the essay to be about content instead of or as well as titles, but as it stands, it's purely about disambiguation of article titles.

And as there was no support at all for the option option, that section is highly misleading. Suggest you simply remove it. That would enhance the credibility of this essay a great deal! Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

There is WP:NODEADLINE to gain support. The deprecation notice is inappropriate and misleading, if anything. Castncoot (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

An alternative to the depracation notice

If the PTI page gets enough support, could we instead tag this page as obsolete and of historical interest only? Two comments at WT:PTI so far, both favourable. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

One since retracted. Working on it. Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Renamed as WP:The onion principle or WP:TOP. Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

An application of this principle to New York

We have been discussing this as a principle for article titles, but I would like to take a moment to discuss it as a principle for individual links. As you all know, I and other editors have been engaged in a weeks-long project to pipe all the links to "New York" through "New York (state)" in order to fix links intended to point to "New York City" (and, much less frequently, to a handful of other targets). So far we have fixed over 12,000 links that were clearly intended to point to the city, including links in text that literally said things like "the city of New York" or "he travelled from New York to Buffalo". Of the 15,000 remaining unaddressed links, many are ambiguous, stating that a person was born or died "in New York" without providing any further context as to whether the city or the state is meant. Quite often, such an assertion is unsourced, which is an issue all its own. However, I believe that as a matter of principle - this principle - if it is impossible to determine from the context whether the city is specifically intended, then it is permissible to link to the state, because it is still technically correct. Once the clearly unambiguous cases are addressed, I intend to pipe these ambiguous cases to the state, possibly with a tag requesting clarity and a source. bd2412 T 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support both this action and principle. A very interesting and relevant observation. Andrewa (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps, and for New York it is more likely to be appropriate due to the fact that a lot of American Wikipedians probably would write "New York" for the state. For some other cases though, Lima, Sao Paulo and Lagos, for example, I'd consider it far more likely that the city was meant than the state, even if that is not obviously stated. (In those three cases the city resides at the primary topic, so they are somewhat different from New York). I agree with tagging the links though, and trying to get some clarity on what was meant.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this misses the point. This application of the principle is to links, not to page names. If for example a similar situation were to arise of an unreferenced link to Lima and manually examining the content left doubt as to whether Lima Province or Lima Region or Lima District or Lima the city was the intent, and it was not more appropriate to simply remove the unreferenced material (and those two ands add two very big ifs), then this principle could be useful there too. Andrewa (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. In fact, what Amakuru and BD2412 have stated here is precisely why HLJC should be moved beyond essay to policy status, but only on an optional and individualized basis. It's obvious at the least here, however, from the discussion in this section and above, that there is no consensus (nor was there ever consensus) for this essay to be deprecated. That tag was apparently put up in August without consensus, but I only noticed it much more recently. I am going to remove that tag, therefore. Castncoot (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  If something applies "but only on an optional and individualized basis" then it's not much of a policy, is it. We already consider cases on their own merits across the Wiki, so we don't need a special essay to tell us to do that. And whether or not we apply it to the small number of ambiguous incoming New York links, I remain opposed to any attempt to use this essay as a reason why we should or shouldn't move any pages connected with New York, Sao Paulo, or anywhere else. It remains very much a minority viewpoint essay. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  This also misses the point, see my reply to Amaruku above. This application is to links, not to page names. The essay as it stands is purely about disambiguating page names. If we were to rewrite it as a more general principle, then it might be possible to gain some support for it. But unless I misunderstand User:BD2412 above, this is not support for the essay as it stands. Andrewa (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  I think that this is a reasonable principle in some cases to apply to article titles, and in some cases to apply to links in articles. Of course, it needs some refinement to this end. bd2412 T 16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  Possibly also renaming? To me the term criterion explicitly refers to adding this to the two explicit criteria at WP:PT. WP:PT of course also explicitly says that these two are only examples of useful criteria, so the HLJC is already allowed on a case by case basis. This should be clarified in the essay IMO. Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  I have clarified it as such on the essay page. If you want to refine that clarification further, then feel free, of course. Castncoot (talk)

  As it stands this edit doesn't clarify at all despite the edit summary. It now reads as if this criterion had some explicit mention in the guidelines. The opposite is of course the case, so the essay is now quite misleading on this very important point. Not quite sure how to fix it. Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  Rather than both rename and rescope what is already a rather messy essay, and one that I think may be of historical interest, I've started a new one at WP:PTI, see WT:PTI. This will I hope in time obsolete WP:HLJC, and may even become a guideline, which doesn't seem likely for the HLJC. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Principle of inclusion

See wp:Principle of topic inclusion for some ideas sparked by this essay and the above discussion. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)