User talk:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York

This is a page for me to keep track of things that may be relevant to (eventually) moving the page on New York State away from the base name, where it has been for a long time as I write.

Please note that at the latest RM at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request and the related page Talk:New York/July 2016 move request closure a moratorium on repeated RM activity has been proposed. The duration (anything from a few weeks to six years has been proposed) and the scope of this are at this point in time undecided. There seems widespread support for a moratorium of some sort, but no sign of a consensus forming on the details.

So all posts to this talk page and edits to the corresponding user page should respect that moratorium, if and when it begins. Apart from that, they belong to the project, not to me, so be bold. Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

See also User talk:Andrewa/New York post RM 2016. The difference is, that page looks back, and this one forward. There ia a lot of potential overlap but it makes sense to me. Andrewa (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

See also User talk:Andrewa/NYRM. Andrewa (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Next RM

I have changed my view to some extent. While I still think that New York City is the primary topic of New York, it seems that New York City may be the better name for the article.

But that doesn't make the name New York available for another article (see WP:SIMPLEDAB). It instead means that New York becomes a primary redirect. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This may need more agreement from editors, since the bare "New York" title appears to be generally thought of as "imprecise", "ambiguous" and therefore an unsuitable title for any page other than a disambiguation page. A primary redirect would target a primary topic, and while it is apparent that you think NYC is that primary topic, the only thing I've seen in the discussions is that "if there is a primary topic, then NYC is it". "If there is..." means to me that at this point, "New York" does not have a primary topic to target. It should be the title of the New York (disambiguation) page for this reason. And that reality is probably one of the biggest things that sticks in the craw of page move opposition.  Paine  ^u/c 14:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how to best test this. As you say, the claim that the base name should be used for or even point to a DAB is a big sticking point for many. My view at this stage is that there is a far better chance of consensus for a primary redirect than for any other possibility, and while I might personally prefer to have a DAB there, it's not as big an issue... I even waver on it from time to time, rereading my comment above! I can see it both ways, while I can't see any justification at all for having the NYS article at the base name. That is the issue for me.

It may even be that the only way to test it properly is at an RM. Andrewa (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hasn't that ship sailed? There were discussions about this in the July RM, where some consensuses were reached. I think it's important in the next RM to be very sure where we want the bare NY title to land. It should definitely not redirect to the dab page, because that would violate malplaced titles. If agreement cannot be found as to whether or not there is a primary topic, then the bare title should be moved to the dab page. Consensus was also garnered to title the state article with the qualifier, as in "New York (state)". These are the only two page moves that need to be addressed. NYC should be ignored in the next RM. Bringing it up only clouds the issue at this point. We're probably going to have to do this in baby steps, clear and distinct baby steps. We should concern participants with moving New York → New York (state) and New York (disambiguation) → New York, and those only. NYC can be addressed later.  Paine  ^u/c 06:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree a great deal. I think that having a DAB at New York is an acceptable solution, but it's not an ideal one IMO, and more important (and perhaps not by coincidence), not as likely to be accepted.

But you do raise an interesting point. If there's no consensus as to whether or not there is a primary topic, that means that there's no consensus as to whether to move the DAB, and so it can't be moved, does it not? Which brings me to the same conclusion. Andrewa (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing to disagree is so much better than other options. Moving the dab page to the raw NY title actually is the only option if no primary topic exists – see the editing guideline. Consensus has led to that determination – anything else is IAR and must be well-reasoned. It's true that there is still resistance to moving the dab page to the raw NY title; however, it's also true that there is resistance to moving it to, or even redirecting it to, the NYC article. Either result will be the highest barrier, and that's pretty high when one considers the height of the primary barrier: moving the NY title away from the state article. It's going to be a risky and scrumptious climb no matter what is decided here.  Paine  ^u/c 17:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You say if no primary topic exists... but whether or not there is a primary topic is still controversial. And while it is in doubt, there is no chance of consensus to move the DAB page.

At least, that's with the policy as it stands. It would make equal sense to say, there is doubt, so it should be a DAB page. But that's not the current policy. Such doubt has sometimes been accepted as evidence that there is no PT, but that's a different issue, and I don't think it helps in this case. There is no longer any credible argument that NYS is the PT. (Perhaps there never was, but that's now academic.) Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And I thought that was the whole purpose of the RM system? We can't just move the state article to New York (state) nor the bare NY title to the dab page, because it's one of the more obvious controversial rename sets. So we begin an RM and strive for consensus. One of the factors that may play a part in a No consensus discussion is not having a clear destination page(s). Just putting "New York → " as a choice in an RM is an almost sure way to fail. The RM should have clearcut destination pages, such as:

New York (disambiguation) → New York

New York → New York (state)

We should strive as much as possible for the least amount of ambiguity. And baby steps... if you think the bare NY title should be a Ptopic redirect to NYC, that can be addressed as a separate issue in a later RM. As it now stands, there is only consensus against the state article as the Ptopic. So until consensus is garnered as to what if any Ptopic exists, I think it would be correct for the bare NY title to top the dab page.  Paine  ^u/c 15:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree that this is more likely to get consensus than the simpler RM that moves only NYS, and not the DAB. (As I said above.) What you're proposing is a multi-move. What I'm proposing is a simple move. And I see significant opposition to moving the DAB, and less to a primary redirect.

Agree that the RM should be as specific as possible. Andrewa (talk)

I'm afraid that what you're proposing would fail, Andrewa. The two main critera to determine a ptopic are failed miserably by NYC. While you may disagree with the sustainability of the NY title topping the state article, editors will bring that up and use it to oppose your proposition. A check of the page views shows that the city page indeed does average about twice as many as the state article; however, twice as many does not a ptopic make. If NYC was getting 10 times the page views, then your proposal might succeed if you could manage to overcome the sustainability criterion, but at only two times the page views, even I don't consider the city to be the ptopic, which means it would be wrong to redirect the bare NY title to the city. Sorry.  Paine  ^u/c 14:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. Let us agree to disagree for now, and continue to discuss logically. We have some time.

I note your opinion that my proposed RM would fail. Please note mine that yours is more likely to fail than mine. We may both be right! But we may not be, and the question then becomes, which to propose and when? We seem in agreement that an RM that presents both equally is even more likely to fail (but not certain to fail in my opinion).

Disagree that The two main criteria to determine a ptopic are failed miserably by NYC. I note and respect your opinion, but mine is that both criteria support the primacy of NYC, and that the term miserably here is hyperbole. Agree about page views, they are never the whole story.

Perhaps the way forward is to test this at an RfC.

I would be happy to delay my foreshadowed RM and instead create such an RfC after the expiration of my self-imposed moratorium, but for me create this RfC before then would IMO violate the spirit although not the letter of that moratorium.

Or, if you or anyone else were to create an RfC before then, I would participate. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible RfC

It is claimed above that The two main critera to determine a ptopic are failed miserably by NYC.

If that is true then New York should not redirect to NYC. But is it?

It is perhaps worth an RfC on the question Is New York City the primary topic of "New York"? before firming up the format of the next RM. Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks etc

We can expect the next RM to be discussed just as passionately as the last.

It would be good to set some better boundaries. Hyperbole was noted by one of the closers of the last RM.

I have taken one personal attack to ANI, now archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Allegations by User:Castncoot, and while no official warning was given, there was consensus at ANI that one was in order. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I have also raised personal attacks by another user here. Response was unsatisfactory IMO. Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have raised general personal attacks here on talk:New York. In fact, one of the points I made there is that the article talk page is not the page for such discussions, but I hope that the explanation given justifies my action in raising it on that page! Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

BB

BB is for Behavioural Boilerplates. These are models for raising behavioral issues on user pages. I might even set these up as templates in my user space.

G'day. Your edit at (insert diff here piped from the page name) appears to be a personal attack on (insert link to user here, which will ping them). Please note that it is not necessary for the user to be themselves offended, or for the attack to be deliberate, to make it a breach of the policy on behaviour. Please discuss the contribution, not the contributor. Otherwise either this user, or other users reading your comments, may be discouraged from discussing the issues, and consensus made harder to achieve. Please read the policy and abide by it, as further breaches may be escalated. You may if you wish respond either here or on my own user talk page. Thank you. (Sign with four tildes).

G'day. Your edit at (insert diff here with piped with the page name) appears to be disruptive because it ignores (insert a policy or guideline link or shortcut here... wp:string, wp:FAITH, wp:disruption and wp:etiquette are strong possibilities, and perhaps wp:LISTGAP). Please note that it is not necessary for disruption to be deliberate. Disruption may include innocent breaches of policy or guidelines, especially if these become a pattern. Disruption of any sort makes consensus harder to achieve. Please read the policy and abide by it, as further breaches may be escalated. You may if you wish respond either here or on my own user talk page. Thank you. (Sign with four tildes).

They must not be used flippantly, excessively or in any abusive manner whatsoever. That is itself disruptive, and counterproductive both because it encourages disruption and because it makes sanctions against the offenders, if these are needed, unlikely if not impossible. Only clear breaches should be taken to user talk pages.

Other ideas? Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Boilerplates/templates are often good ideas, and in a case like the page moves request we are considering, they might be used extensively. But will any such notification actually be effective? Remains to be seen with some of the involved editors. A threat with little or no actual substance is worse than no threat at all. It's probably not a good idea to suggest such tools/boilerplates in a requested move proposal. In the case of NY → they would probably be overused, even misused, very easily by some overly sensitive participants in both camps. Might even be misused by the scurvy, slick ones.  Paine  ^u/c 17:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The response of both of those I accused of disruption last time was to counter-accuse me of disruption. Baseless accusations of disruption are themselves disruptive, and can be quite effective, see User:Andrewa/how not to rant#How to rant. So just-below-the-radar disruption must be simply ignored; This is the only effective counter.

On the other hand, it's quite valid to keep a private, off-wiki record of such tactics (not on-wiki, that would be an attack page, nor off-wiki but public, that would also be a behavioural breach). A pattern of just-below-the-radar disruption with diffs as evidence may cross the line and be actionable.

And it's very important that the "good guys" keep our own noses clean, whatever the provocation. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Subpages

If 2017 is to be a vanilla RM, there will not be any subpages of talk:New York or other mainspace talk pages created. But there may be need for somewhere to take discussions that, intentionally or not, threaten to derail the process.

See User talk:Andrewa/NYRM 2017. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Next RM timing

I am under a personal and public moratorium not to raise another NY RM during a period of six months from 23:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)... That commitment expires towards the end of March 2017. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No big deal

From time to time it has been observed (by myself and others) that the proposed move of New York State away from the base name New York should be no big deal.

Whether there is consensus on this has not been determined. There are views both ways.

• Several of those opposed have been quite passionate as to the damage a move would do, one in particular claiming irreparable harm both to the article and to Wikipedia generally if the article is moved in their arguments on the July 2016 RM.
• In assessing these arguments, one of the panel explicitly noted that the current situation is seriously damaging to Wikipedia, a second noted that it is damaging but did not say how seriously, while the third did not comment either way.
• Since the July RM, some supporters of the move have also claimed that the current situation is seriously damaging.

My belief remains that the current situation is significantly damaging but not a big deal. Every day RMs are actioned that are less serious. But I also regularly deal with others that are more serious (perhaps not quite so often). This is somewhere in the middle, and frankly this seems so obvious to me that I am surprised that it is not obvious to everyone. What am I missing?

But I also believe that the lack of disastrous consequences is no reason for leaving the (damaging) situation as it is. To accept it as such a reason is IMO more damaging than the article naming issue itself. It would set an appalling precedent. Andrewa (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted to [1] to Talk:New York. Interesting to see what reaction it brings. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Typhoon Noru and Talk:Martha (pigeon) for two even smaller deals... which are nevertheless worth discussing and, depending on the discussion outcome, worth fixing. Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not for anything, Andrewa, but doesn't it show a marked lack of passion to call such a passion-filled subject as the renaming of the NY state article "no big deal"? We did not get the page renamed with passionless policy and guideline arguments. As good as they were against the policyless, guidelineless arguments of the opposition, they were not good enough by large measure. We need more next time, we need to realize that either the passion of the opposition is valid and well-grounded, or it isn't. If it is, then we should let the page title remain as it is; however, if we decide that the opposition's passion is not valid, then we must confront that passion with fiery vigor, or else we'll just end up as supporters have in the past – much time and effort spent to no avail. The flame of Passion is the key. It must be either matched with a superior fire, or it must be snuffed out as early as possible – or both.  Paine  ^u/c 15:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Passion

Replying to User:Paine Ellsworth 15:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC):

Thanks for the reply. Agree with most of this. It probably does show a lack of passion, yes, but I'm not convinced that this is the problem. But I admit that I'm very puzzled at what the problem is.

As I've hinted before, I think we may never know the full story. It may be some strange psycho-sociological phenomenon that someone, someday will get a PhD for investigating (or may already have done so). It may be something off-wiki, for example a bar-room bet that it won't be moved that will cost one of the antis their house and marriage, or at least a friendship that they value more than they should (such bets while not illegal are not enforceable at law in Australia however well documented, but I don't know about the USA, and they may be very awkward socially). Or it may just be a perfect storm... lots of little things all coincidentally happening at once that add up to a surprising result.

My pet theory is still the third of these, the perfect storm. But there may be other explanations... and/or wp:creed#15.

But I'm not convinced that passion will help with any of these. My view is the opposite, that as logic, policy and guidelines so clearly indicate a move, bringing passion into it just risks diminishing these arguments.

What will help if I'm right is, as you say, if such arguments are snuffed out as early as possible. This is what I failed to do last time. There are two aspects to this, the logic and the behaviour.

I'm still concerned that many personal attacks went uncriticised and unpunished, and unsure what to do better. The one I raised at ANI received consensus that action was justified, but from two non-admins I gather, and was auto-archived and never closed. If any admin even looked at it they left no evidence of this. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be no surprise that "many personal attacks went uncriticised and unpunished", Andrewa. Many people don't get their backs up just because some numbnuts starts pitching mud. I've been told that to ignore the numbnuts is the most effective way to quiet them, but I've seen that work and not work. The underlying purpose behind those attacks is the most important issue that needs to be addressed and overcome. And that purpose is passion. While such attacks may not get the direct targets' backs up, they still work to get on the nerves of other editors who read their screed, such as yourself, and who may take offense. The underlying purpose, passion, or more specifically, trying to raise the passion levels of others in a negative fashion, best serves the opposition by clouding the real issues, such as policy- and guideline-based logical arguments, and that is what causes trusted closers to find only a "no consensus" answer to the requested page move. That is why the passion must be snuffed out early whenever possible, to keep the blue sky blue and free of clouds, whether cumulus or nimbus.  Paine  ^u/c 04:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The intent of the attacks doesn't much concern me, I don't pretend to understand it. And it's not so much offense on my part. I'm concerned for two reasons.

Firstly and most important, I fear that it may have a sort of chilling effect on other users. I've seen that happen... most obviously when Victor whatsisname the 10-string guitarist abused and insulted Janet Marlow (and also me) in talk pages here, and for a while he got off scot free, and by the time he was blocked she had left and I don't blame her. I must wonder whether the abuse heaped on the only one of the panel to find consensus contributed to the late and convoluted reply by the third to report back, and the reluctance of either of them to then comment further. None of us is being paid enough to make it worth suffering such abuse. (;->

And when I'm attacked, even if it runs off my back a la duck (it generally does), others can be put off rather than risk copping the same.

Secondly, it can be very distracting. I wonder whether, had I done the work you now see at User:Andrewa/New York post RM 2016#A summary of the arguments against and presented it for all (including the panel) to see before they made their initial assessments, we might have had a different result. Instead we had Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#A line-by-line analysis of why every single oppose should be weighted less heavily which, while entertaining for the converted (and even showing a little passion I guess), didn't even get a mention at the MR for which it was supposedly written (or did I miss it?).

I can understand two panelists thinking that they could assess the two sets of arguments as presented as roughly equal in weight, but only by assuming they didn't do this sort of exercise themselves; That they looked only at the mess of poor indentation, did-didnot-did-not-did squabbling, personal attack, passion, etc. that both sets of arguments and !votes ended up being.

So, not convinced that we fight fire with fire. I'm in my local Rural Fire Brigade and we do it all the time. But in this context, it can be fun but I think it's completely counterproductive. So convince me... passionately if you like. Quack quack quack. Andrewa (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not convinced, eh? Your position in your Local makes you know beyond doubt just how effective the construction of a small, controlled wall of fire can be to stop an advancing out-of-control fire by removing its fuel. That must give you an idea or two. We are dealing with just a few very strong editors who have been up and down the pike and who aren't the least bit perturbed by ANI proposals against them. I read your ANI. Two other editors besides yourself thought that sanctions against Cassie were in order, no matter what word salad that editor offered. And yet? the question must remain why it stalled and was archived without being closed and sans any sanctions. What goes on in the background with these very strong and long-trusted, though misguided, editors? Yet another area in question is one of the hearts of the opposition's argument... It's been this way for a long, long time without causing any problems. And this was said in the midst and heat of BD2412's and others' descriptions of the humongous job of link fixes to the article. And yet having the bare "New York" title at the state article did not cause any problems over the years? The fact is... it actually has caused some big problems and will continue to do so if not repaired. So a few opposers have become and are very adept at 1) how and when to lie, be believed and get away with it, 2) how to use one's strength against oneself, and 3) how and when to use passion shrewdly and just enough to cloud the important issues to result in "no consensus" – they don't have to push too far so as to get an official "not moved" decision, they just need to use the tactics necessary to ensure "no consensus" and what essentially means the same thing. They are not the raging fire – they are just the arsonists who start the fire and fan it. That is the fire that must be fought and snuffed out early. Their key battleground? – discussion areas.  Paine  ^u/c 16:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should see what has to be done as a choice between fighting fire with fire and snuffing out the fire of passion as early as possible. The latter should be our first choice; however, we should have a definite plan to execute the former, the 2nd choice, if necessary. The sky must be blue. In this vein, I would keep the discussions and discussion areas to a minimum. Last time, the !votes and rationales were effectively lost in a passionate and stormy sea of discussion after discussion, section after section of talks about every little thing. Next time, the RM must be structured like any other RM. It should absolutely not be on a subpage and should be started and listed on the Talk:New York page. No peripheral discussions until it is ended. One discussion area and one only should be sectioned just after the survey, as is normal. We might also want to appoint a monitor, preferably a trusted, uninvolved admin, who will very quickly close any inappropriate discussions and whisk them off to a subpage, such as Talk:New York/Requested move 19 January 2017 – Closed discussions. This issue reached the level of "disgusting" in the July RM, so the procedure of having a monitor who will close and move any inappropriate discussion (or post before discussion ensues) to a subpage must be made clear to everyone from the start. The only appropriate discussions will be those that are specifically related to the page move request and that are carried out in a civil, and only civil, manner. That would hopefully snuff out any arson attempts in the new, upcoming RM.  Paine  ^u/c 17:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is not a lot of difference between our positions.

I'm not convinced we should appoint a monitor, but I can see some advantages. I'd like to keep it all as vanilla as possible. The patience of many is wearing thin worn through.

There will probably be many subsections of the discussion section. We'll just need to keep it focussed as best we can.

I will probably create a user subpage of my own, and often link to it with comments such as Bullshit... see User:Andrewa/Replies to NYRM rants#The sky is falling. Or perhaps something a little less firey. Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It would also be good IMO to immediately take any clear behavioral issues to user talk pages. These include personal attacks and disruption. Two things to bear in mind about disruption: Firstly, it doesn't need to be deliberate to be disruptive; Secondly, baseless allegations (including allegations of disruption) are themselves disruptive.

Raising it on the user's talk page is the first step in dealing with any behavioral issue, and is a prerequisite for raising it on ANI etc.. So it has two practical results: Firstly, it may even result in the user modifying their behaviour; Secondly, if they don't it opens a possibility of further action. Andrewa (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

See also #BB. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Paine (and any interested others of course), see User talk:Andrewa/NYRM#a place to send things. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Readers and editors

Ah, but someone will say, it's a medium sized deal admittedly, but it's getting undue attention. For the good of Wikipedia, let us all give up and all walk away and all get on with other more productive pursuits. No more discussion, so no building of consensus, so no move.

This is of course an appeal to the interests of editors. As has also been pointed out, readers are the bottom line. The interests of readers are best served by fixing the problem. Two of the panel of three found that there is harm to readers in the current situation, so by that criterion it should be fixed.

But if there is enough harm to editors, then this will eventually affect readers of too course. The argument is, the benefit to readers is small compared to the negative impact of the discussion on editors, so it it ain't worth it, QED and all go home.

But... we we can't have it both ways. If we're to look at the effect on editors, we must look at all the effects on editors. And in terms of the overall effect on editors it is important to fix this. It is a festering sore. As I have said previously, it makes a mockery of our naming conventions.

And because of this, for at least twelve years now it has been coming up again and again as editors new to the conflict, naively expecting the rules to be followed, are viciously attacked by relatively old hands who don't want to follow the rules and have well-demonstrated skill at gaming the system to achieve this. That was my personal experience, and I am not alone. And there is no reason to think this will go away. It should be fixed.

It can be fixed either by adopting a new naming convention to cover this case, or by simply moving the NYS article to comply to the existing conventions. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Next RM closing

There has been some discussion of this already... see the MR which will shortly be archived and I think I also remember some at Talk:New York, if so probably buried in the extensive mutual admiration now rightly entombed at Talk:New York (state)/Archive 7. If looking for it there use the w-i-i-i-d-e-s-t screen you have available, otherwise the indentation may get down to one word a line in several places. It beat me.

Anyway, I'm at this stage advocating a vanilla RM, able to be closed by any uninvolved admin. But put a comment on it suggesting that non-admin close is not a good idea or this one. Andrewa (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that you endorse waiting until March to open a new RM. Since the date of the recently closed RM is 19 July 2016, the six-month period suggested for "no consensus" closes, which begins on the date of the RM, not on its closing date, ends on 18 January 2017. Anytime after that date would be acceptable, and yet the longer we wait (up to a point) the better the chance of success. Just a thought.  Paine  ^u/c 16:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've made several proposals for a moratorium, but none gained any explicit support whatsoever that I can recall. I think you mean my unilateral commitment at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request closure#Pledges, which put a date to a prior pledge at the diff linked from there. Andrewa (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I reread this page and to my dismay and embarrassment , it was just above at #Next RM timing.  Paine  ^u/c 16:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is an enormous amount of relevant text, I would not feel embarrassed.

I'm creating yet a third user page at User:Andrewa/NYRM which may even be moved to the project namespace someday (but not too soon). It's to be a concise index of previous discussion, going back to the beginning of time. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean... further back than when dinos became birds? That should take you awhile – 13.7 billion years is a long time. Remember the faqamo! [[File:|18px|link=]][[File:|18px|link=]]  Paine  ^u/c 00:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I took the phrase from one of the clear history options in Google Chrome, which I thought was both amusing and accurate. In practice I doubt we need to go back further than the beginning of Wikipedia... but I could be wrong. The error may have started with Nupedia.

But if so Larry Sanger has now fixed it on his own wiki. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=New_York&redirect=no redirects to their article on New York City. They also have article on the state at New York (state), and a DAB at the obvious name... just what I am now proposing Wikipedia should do. Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Intrinsic problems with panel closure

IMO the basic problem with the panel discussion is best illustrated by the mess that the July 2016 closing continues to be.

Both Talk:New York/July 2016 move request and Talk:New York/July 2016 move request closure remain unhatted as I write [2] [3] and there's no indication of how or when or by whom or even whether they will ever be closed for further comment.

I feel reluctant to do it myself, as a very involved party. Perhaps I should raise it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. But we seem critically short of uninvolved admins willing to take part in NYRM-related discussions. I'm even more reluctant to add to the workload and potentially reduce the number.

This is in stark contrast to the well-established and partly automated system at WP:RM. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I've asked the MRV closer about this at User talk:Salvidrim!#MRV and RM closes.  Paine  ^u/c 03:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The move request was closed as "no consensus," and the move review was recently closed as "endorsed." That completes the process, regardless of whether anyone thinks the process went well or agrees with the result. No further "paperwork" is required to effectuate the closing. In particular, someone created a talkpage about the move request and later another talkpage about the request to close the move request, presumably in an effort to prevent the RM discussion from entirely overshadowing any other discussions taking place on Talk:New York—but these pages are ancillary to the move request itself and it makes absolutely no difference whether they are formally hatted or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, and agree with all but the very last clause (well, the exact phrasing of the latest MR close was disputed but I see no point in taking that any further).

I still think it's messy.

As far as paperwork goes, personally I don't see that any further paperwork should be required to move the page. There is now documented consensus that NYS is not the primary topic. There is a clear policy on what happens in that situation. There are no valid arguments for keeping the page where it is. Seen through the lens of policy, that seems to me (and to one of the panel as far as we know) to be strong consensus to move. But I'm involved, and there is no consensus as to whether there is consensus to move the page, so we need to go through a bit more paperwork!

Just to clarify further, that first someone was User:BD2412 [4] and the second talk subpage was created by myself [5] not by them. That first subpage was created in response to the MR result of relist regarding the original 2016 RM. I subsequently became proposer of record of the "new" RM , as BD2412 felt that a formal proposer was required by this process. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

To editor Newyorkbrad: I agree with all but the subpage that was created at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request to house the expected lengthy discussions. That was the actual RM talk page and, in compliance with closing instructions, it has been archived. With respect and ongoing trust, thank you for all your help and sweat-of-the-brow work you have invested thus far!  Paine  ^u/c 00:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Paine. I had not thought of that as a possibility. It is as you say (AFAIK) an unprecedented situation. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If someone has the time and inclination, it would be good to compare this close with the two panel discussions on which the process was modelled. They are linked to in previous discussion of course.

• Did they work any better than this one did?
• If so, what made the difference?

I'm happy just to conclude that this one didn't work, and move on. But interested in other views.

And I guess an obvious question is, did the panel look at those previous closes? If not, could we have arrived at a clearer result by explicitly referring them to these as precedents? Andrewa (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)