Talk:New York (state)/Archive 7

Removal of waterfall image from panoramas
I want to remove File:Niagra Falls-wide image-NPS.jpg from the gallery of panoramas. While in the panorama format, it is pixelated because it is expanded beyond its limit of resolution and looks like a pointillist painting. The image is 960 × 148 and being displayed at 1,400. I deleted it but it was restored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Agree or disagree?


 * Why not just display it at the correct size? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's quite an exaggeration to liken it to a pointillist painting. You may be confusing the mist with pixellation. It's just fine the way it has been and accomplishes its intended scale for the page. Castncoot (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like a bad idea to display an image bigger than its size, but I can't find any policy or guideline. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. It does seem wrong to simply remove the image. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the sizing, Kendall-K1. This is what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) should have done, rather than drastically wiping out an image without proposing a solution or replacement. Castncoot (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation: The city so nice they named it thrice
Remember, there are three New Yorks. The city so nice they named it "thrice". There is the state, the city, and the county. "New York" is also used for Manhattan which is the same as New York County, New York. A link may say that someone was born in New York, meaning the city, but we should disambiguate it further and say "Manhattan, New York City" so people are not left with the impression that the person could have been born on Staten Island (Richmond County, New York). The other four counties became boroughs of New York City in 1898. Many entries that are New York City, New York should be changed to "Manhattan, New York City" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Overkill to change if it just read, "New York City", but I agree that changing "New York City, New York", or "New York, New York" to "Manhattan, New York City" would be a good idea; except in quoting addresses, where "New York, NY" is the standard disambiguation. Castncoot (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone raised American and has lived in mid-state NY as well as several major cities with separate boroughs, I can say unequivocally that the Brooklyn/Manhattan/Queens/Staten/etc. distinction is something only people who live in NYC care about. The rest of the country and world can't even place the other NYC boroughs on a map. Also, no other city link is redirected to specific boroughs/municipalities – not London or Chicago or Los Angeles. The region administrated by a mayor seems to be last stop for specificity for general location links. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

When we say Sydney we generally mean more than the area officially known as the City of Sydney. To most of the world, the city known as Sydney includes the whole City of Parramatta, just as London includes the City of Westminster. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the City of Westminster is a London Borough (despite the "City" in its name), making it fully under the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. It's as much a part of London as Brooklyn is a part of NYC. The City of London is also a London Borough (sort of), just as New York County (aka Manhattan) is also a NYC borough. The difference with Sydney, as far as I know, is that there's no "Greater Sydney Authority". So it's not quite wholly analogous. But that's true of any major city. Each is unique, and has its own peculiarities that prevent blanket statements about demonyms and such. oknazevad (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Different cities adopt different approaches, and only a minority of our readers will be familiar with the niceties that are understood by (dare I say it) New Yorkers. It's good to dispel their (our) ignorance. It's just that the article title is not an effective place to do it. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You've got it all backwards as to what is the "local" rule.
 * It you look at the actual de facto situation with city names (and I have a fairly good grasp of this having edited for about 11 years), Wikipedia always defers to domestic common usage to the extent necessary to resolve a city name as pointing to a coherent topic. With respect to the vast majority of global cities, like Paris, Rome, Zurich, New York, Los Angeles, etc., the standard domestic common usage is that the name of the city refers to that portion of the metropolitan area governed by the legal entity itself (the French commune, the Italian comuna, the Swiss stadt, the American city, etc.) and then there are separate terms referring to region, metropolitan area, or both.  For example, Americans distinguish between the City of Los Angeles (the largest and most populous of 88 cities within the County of Los Angeles), the Los Angeles metropolitan area, also known as the Southland (Los Angeles and Orange counties) and the even more gigantic Greater Los Angeles Area (five counties).
 * The outliers are England and Australia, due to their failure to force amalgamation of original city entities with surrounding city entities which would now be deemed inner suburbs of the larger metropolitan areas, as occurred in the majority of industrialized countries. Thus, Wikipedia doesn't use "London" to refer to the "City of London" nor "Sydney" to refer to the "City of Sydney."
 * That's why I'm beginning to wonder if you have traveled overseas, especially to the United States. This is something that experienced travelers know about (if they have traveled to/from those outliers) because it is necessary to understand this issue in order to plan a trip intelligently.  For example, an American's trip to "London" would be very short if they were thinking of the City of London, while an Australian's trip to "Toronto" would be quite comprehensive.  That's why it sounds so odd to Americans to hear you to referring to the situation in NYC as a local rule; it's actually the majority rule worldwide.  (I should note in closing that I have actually visited every city that I just named.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a consolidated London, as I mentioned above. oknazevad (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is irrelevant, but just to put your mind at rest, I have also visited each of the cities you name. I don't claim to be much of a tourist, I travel for business or to attend particular events and meet people I know. So it is something of a fluke perhaps, but you just happen to have picked only cities that I've visited over the years. And there are others. I'm curious as to what (if anything) you think that shows.
 * Disagree that Wikipedia always defers to domestic common usage to the extent necessary to resolve a city name as pointing to a coherent topic (your emphasis) but if you have evidence of this, it seems it might be relevant (my main reservation is I'm not sure exactly what it means). I think Wikipedia looks at all available reliable sources, local and otherwise. In the case of a little village, the sources tend to be predominantly local, but in the case of a global city such as New York, the sources tend to be global. And there is a continuum between these extremes. Andrewa (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You say you are curious as to what you think that shows? Unfortunately, it shows that you were not paying attention to something that should have been obvious when you visited those cities. It is very difficult to plan a visit to a strange city without first trying to understand the actual situation on the ground.  The only exceptions would be if you did very short in-and-out visits for specific business purposes (i.e., going from the airport to a hotel to a convention center, then back to the hotel and then back to the airport), or you always take tours entirely planned from start to finish by others (e.g., escorted motorcoach tours) rather than planning your own travel.
 * You attempt to disclaim interest in what is correct, and then say you are interested in current usage. I already pointed out exactly what that current usage is. That usage is something you should have noticed either at the time you visited them, or at this time by simply glancing at the Wikipedia articles about the cities I referred to.
 * Another point is that it is often impossible to reconcile diverse global usages. For example, many Latin Americans consider it offensive that citizens of the United States refer to themselves as Americans.  We use American anyway on Wikipedia because that is the common usage in the English language.  Similarly, the de facto majority rule for cities large and small appears to be that the name refers to what the locals think it is (that's what I meant by domestic common usage), which is nearly always the legal entity first, followed by qualifiers if necessary like "metropolitan area" to refer to the larger built-up agglomeration. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you think you are making this a bit personal? Your speculation on my travels having failed miserably, you now want to play twenty questions. You do make some relevant points, but they're so tangled in other stuff that sorting them out seems pointless to me, and will just encourage your games.
 * Ask a relevant question on the topic, and I'll answer it. Always glad to. Bear in mind that I'm not a reliable source (and neither are you, as far as I know). Andrewa (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your response was anything but direct---and you accuse me of playing games? I must reluctantly concur with User:Castncoot's point that you should strongly consider deferring to editors who already understand the underlying subject---namely, human geography. It's like how I would defer to the math and physics experts when it comes to the article on the mathematics of general relativity. They understand tensors far better than I ever will.
 * For the third time, I will point this out again. I'll make it very simple. Try to respond this time.
 * First. The domestic common usage (city name normally refers to city proper and not metro area) is something you should have noticed at the time you visited those cities. Did you or did you not notice it? Or in other words, when you were there, were you paying attention to how locals talk and write about their cities?  Yes or no.
 * Second. Did you review all the Wikipedia articles for all the cities I mentioned above? Except for the two outliers noted, isn't it true that they reflect a common pattern in which the article focuses on the city proper and not the larger metro area around it?  --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to be four questions. The answers to the first two are no and yes, respectively. The answers to the second two are no and no.
 * And now I have one for you. Will you defer to me on matters of logic? Yes or no.
 * And a second question. The cities in question are Paris, Rome, Zurich, New York, Los Angeles, Sydney, and London. One of those wikilinks is different to all of the others. Can you see which one? Yes or no. Here is a hint. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But the point is that it is pretty global not to refer to people from adjoining states as "New Yorkers", and to do such is an error. PS, is it just me, or was this placed in the wrong section; it reads like it should be up in the discussion above. I'm okay with moving it. oknazevad (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you say. But the question isn't whether it's correct or an error according to you or even any authority. The question is simply whether it's current usage. If I describe a member of a dormitory suburb of NYC as a New Yorker, or otherwise imply that they live in New York, would most of the world have any problem understanding me? We need to find out. I think there is now no doubt that New-York-etc-ers would completely misunderstand. They would look at (me) as if (I) had three heads. But is this true of the rest of the world? Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PS I think it's more trouble than it's worth to move these comments, but I'm OK to put a pointer here to a new section or subsection in a more logical place. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's where I'm thinking we have our communication issue may stem from. While looking at the article on Sydney (both metropolis as a whole and the City of Sydney), I was reminded that in Australian usage "suburb" is used much as the word "neighborhood" is in American usage, whereas "suburb" in American usage denotes a town/viilage/etc. near a major city but with a totally separate local municipal government. So there's a difference in connotation that may be lost; in American usage suburbs are separate, not part of the city. They're near, not in the city. And that's not just a local to NYC thing, but part of American English as a whole. In short. It's an WP:ENGVAR thing. Of course, per WP:TIES, American English should be used for the articles regarding New York City and the state. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's such an interesting observation it probably deserves its own section. A much more applicable policy is WP:TITLEVAR. I think we may just have stumbled onto a valid argument supporting primacy of NYS. That's not the end of the story, of course, we need to consider all arguments. But it's definitely interesting. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See, User:Oknazevad (and anyone else interested) and thanks for the discussion, that is real progress IMO (embarrassed as I am, see that section). Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea that American cities are somehow single entities, in a way that British or Australian cities aren't, is a little fanciful. Look at a map of the city of Los Angeles:

It has big holes in it for Beverly Hills and all that sort of thing, as well as a thin bit stretching down to a fatter bit in the far south. And doesn't really correspond to the urban or metro areas, which include loads of other cities that nonetheless regard themselves as somewhat LA (hence the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim). Perhaps I'm misreading the situation, but I'd have thought that in America, as elsewhere, administrative boundaries don't necessarily correspond to what people think of in reality as the city. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on the context, to some extent. LA is definitely one of those areas where the city boundaries are less important, in large part because a lot of governance is handled by Los Angeles County, which contains the entirety of the city and all those other places like Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, etc, that are often thought of as "Los Angeles". Miami is in a similar boat. But that's not the case in say, Chicago, where the difference between being in the city proper and being in the Chicagoland metro area is often noted. Someone from the suburbs will say they live by Chicago, but not in Chicago. I think that may have to do with the size and shape of the boundaries (LA proper is oddly shaped, as you note, and Miami proper is rather small). But the distinction is made. oknazevad (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to beg to differ slightly with Oknazevad on this one. People do care strongly whether a place is in the City of Los Angeles versus merely being in the metropolitan area, as in virtually any other large American city. (The only possible exception is probably Las Vegas, where many visitors actually stay in Paradise, Nevada and never visit the city itself.) A good example is the Los Angeles neighborhood known as Beverly Hills Post Office.  If a City of Beverly Hills address were not significantly more prestigious than a City of Los Angeles address, then the USPS could have modified the ZIP Code boundary to match the city boundary a long time ago and avoided all the administrative craziness that results from not having them line up. For example, emergency response to that area is sometimes slightly delayed because emergency dispatchers cannot rely on the ZIP Code of an address as a quick mnemonic to determine whether to dispatch personnel from the City of Beverly Hills or City of Los Angeles.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Amakuru, in the U.S., the State (any state) carries a higher-level jurisdictional status than any city or county - and significantly so. I am assuming (and awaiting Andrewa's clarification on this) that this is true in Australia as well. Castncoot (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your question? Andrewa (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand from this that people residing in, say, East St Louis, Illinois, Camden, New Jersey, Kansas City, Kansas, Council Bluffs, Iowa, Vancouver, Washington, Jersey City, New Jersey etc, feel no affiliation to the neighbouring big city in another state, even though they're just a short drive away and part of the same urban area? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would also probably help to know what the relevance is of the question. AFAIK both Australia and Wikipedia have yet to ratify the HLJC, so it's not yet in force. Wikipedia might be a lost cause I think, but Australian politics are very interesting at the moment, so you might like to contact Pauline Hanson or failing her Nick Xenophon (and you think you got problems). (-> Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * re: Amakuru (talk) I'm trying hard not to make any more comments, but... I live near Albany, I worked in Albany for many years, but I don't feel like I live in Albany, or much connection to it. When people ask where I'm from I usually say "near Albany" as a geographic reference, because people might not know where Saratoga Springs is, to say nothing of the town I'm actually from. What does this actually have to do with the question? Peter Flass (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've long since forgotten what the main question we're actually discussing here is to be honest, I'm just chatting at this point, and trying to learn something new about the thought processes of people living near big cities but not in them! My position on the overall subject of primary topic between state and city is well known, and I'll continue pressing for the move subject to normal processes, but otherwise I'm not advocating any particular other course of action here. Others may have a different agenda, I'm not sure on that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My agenda is also along those lines. I don't think we'll get consensus at this point on anything much, although I'm open to changing my position and am interested in understanding the other side (and otherwise I would not waste time here).
 * And I have made enormous progress in understanding the other side, and also in developing my own thoughts. For example, I hadn't thought of Gol Gol, New South Wales as an example of a town that is part of a city that is itself in an adjacent state, despite having spent a few days there just last year. New York is not unique! Or perhaps I should say, not in that sense at least. I'm still not sure that this is at all relevant to the move, but it's very relevant to some of the arguments opposing the move.
 * Or perhaps I should say, proposed arguments opposing the move! I have still to find a single valid argument opposing. And I am looking hard!
 * And that is actually a danger sign. Am I just allowing myself to be polarised, and am I similarly polarising others?
 * I try to always imagine that one of the next generation of Wikipedians might do a PhD based on these discussions, and try to make a favourable impression on them. These pages are all going to be archived I imagine. Who knows, in the year 2525 that archive may be all they know of Andrew Alder. Digital eternity. Scary? Andrewa (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that the plain title should point to the disambiguation page and the state get a parenthetical, if only for clarity. But I'm trying to explain to you that in American English people do not refer to residents of adjacent states as New Yorkers. That is all. I've never made a single higher level jurisdiction argument; I have said that separate jurisdictions are recognized. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2016
 * Agree with all of this, except I'm puzzled that you think I've ever questioned it. My point is rather that for some and perhaps even most of the rest of the world, it makes sense to talk of residents of some parts of New Jersey as New Yorkers, and no sense at all to call residents of Albany that. Do you disagree? Andrewa (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have also yet to get to the heart of why so many people object to the proposed dab page. Reams and reams of text have been written on the matter, but ultimately it boils down to "might as well have one or other topic on the primary page", "New York is higher jurisdiction", or "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I can sort of understand why people would have some of these views, and there is a slight logic to it, even if it isn't backed up by policy or guideline. What I don't understand the strength of feeling attached to them. Terms like "disastrous" and "irreparable harm" were thrown into the mix, and essentially the move request failed because even though the panel could see that the argument in favour was stronger than the argument against, they couldn't get past the solid wall of very strong opposition. If you get any further insight into this, of if anyone else wants to clarify, I'd like to get more understanding. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason for the passion is just a case of ownership. This was put succinctly recently: I request you to please defer to those who actually have topic experience to make the weighty decisions here. Threats to well-established ownership can be a very powerful motivator indeed, and not just in Wikipedia.

I find understanding the panel comments more difficult. I don't want to challenge them, I've consistently said we should have no MR, and that there should be a (reasonable) moratorium on RMs. But I would like to understand.

One has said that the !votes are virtually a tie. But the closing instructions are explicit: !votes that are illogical or not based on policy are to be discarded before assessing consensus. I just can't see how you can do that and come up with a tie! If it said given less weight, I'd still have trouble seeing a tie. But it says discarded.

It seems that this was just a head count. There are many other things I fail to understand in the comments so far, but that's the biggie. If that is what has been done by two of the panel, all of the rest of their comments then make sense.

So that's more food for thought during the moratorium. But I can't see how the consensus guidelines can be made stronger or clearer. They are devastatingly clear already, and far stronger than I would have written them. But perhaps I have a lesson to learn there. Food for thought indeed. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The heading of this section is "Disambiguation: The city so nice they named it thrice". One part of that topic is, how should buildings, parks, and other entities, or persons born, in a specific borough of New York City be located? I believe if someone was born in Staten Island, we should say they were born in Staten Island. If this is right, I believe that if someone was born in Manhattan, we should say they were born in Manhattan. New York City with its multiple boroughs is not entirely unique in this regard. I believe that if someone was born in Van Nuys, we should say they were born in Van Nuys in the San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles, California. However, no special qualifiers should be used for people born in "regular" parts of Los Angeles. I admit that this is inconsistent, treating "regular" parts of Los Angeles as Los Angeles while treating New York County as Manhattan, but that is because there is a Manhattan article, but there is not an article about the "regular" parts of Los Angeles. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The "option" option for HLJC
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? Castncoot (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have replied at Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because we already discussed doing exactly that, and it indeed did not have "significant support". You may want to try it again at a larger forum like WP:Village pump (policy) and see if it gains traction there.
 * But then, we couldn't do that if a twelve years broadly constructed moratorium to discuss anything related to this title is established, right? Diego (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason for not adopting the HLJC is simple. It is not generally applied to any other article but this one (see Lima / Lima Province, Lhasa / Lhasa (prefecture-level city), Leeds / City of Leeds, Honolulu / Honolulu County, Hawaii for other counterexamples). And is in effect a guideline designed specifically to try to support this status quo when no other policy or guideline or policy supports it. The tail wagging the dog effectively. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is much truth in what you say, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, 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. See, e.g., Alden, New York. We decided years ago to treat the town as the primary topic of the term because it was often impossible to determine whether a reference to someone being "from" the place name intended the town or the village. I would grant, however, that these topics tend to be obscure, so there is little else to go on in making this determination. bd2412  T 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting! We decided years ago... Can you link to any relevant discussion, either of specific cases or of the principle, or to any naming convention that resulted?
 * I had a look at Talk:Alden, New York and Talk:Alden (village), New York... nothing. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We had a consolidated discussion which is preserved at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/New York villages within towns (the discussion was copied and pasted, relevant history is at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links). As far as I recall, we later applied this to similar situations in New Jersey and Delaware. bd2412  T 18:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, perfect! More light reading for the months or years ahead, but relevant IMO. I had a look for the same sections at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 13 and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Archive 13 but it seems the cut-and-paste was done before the archive bot did its thing, so that discussion is not in the normal talk page archive, am I correct?
 * And for me it raised another point in the shoulda-thoughta-it direction... I'm not sure whether or not WikiProject Disambiguation were explicitly notified of these discussions. Yes, they should have been tipped off by several automated notifications, and I imagine they were. But then WikiProject New York and WikiProject New York City had the same access to these tools and even listed them on their project pages, but didn't use them and then blamed everyone in sight (self included) for not giving them a manual heads-up as well. So I'm adding WikiProject DAB to my list of heads-ups for next time. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think that I notified relevant projects, although it was a long time ago. The principle is the most important thing. In some cases, it makes sense to assume that the primary topic is the encompassing geographic jurisdiction. However, a strong case for this is where there are likely to be many links that will otherwise be unsolvable, and where both answers are technically correct. In the case of New York, I think that it is more likely that links will be solvable. bd2412  T 23:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're yourself quite active in WikiProject DAB I gather. It did not occur to me to notify them, despite their banner on the DAB talk page, but the formal RM at did specifically mention the DAB page so the bots would have have picked it up. I have heard no criticism of the notifications for that latest RM, unlike the previous one, so perhaps we can both take a bow. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * HLJC is dead. It basically claimed that "bigger is better" (direct quote from talk page) because NY state contains all the important things that lie in NYC plus a few more. We need to consider the importance of the region itself rather than the total importance of all things that happen to lie within it.  Salzburg (city) is more important than Salzburg (state), and the HLJC talk page contains many other counterexamples. Certes (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, you and Amakuru both think that the HLJC is a tactic in the NY discussion rather than a serious proposal with any chance of adoption, is that correct?
 * If so I agree. Even if it was once a serious proposal (which I'm very much inclined to doubt, we assume good faith but we don't hang on to this assumption in the face of evidence}, to continue to cite a proposal which has not been adopted and which seems to have no chance of adoption (not for the moment at the very least) is not helpful to the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that HLJC is unlikely to be adopted. Identifying an argument against the page move (the state includes the city) helped the discussion but we didn't really need an essay for that. I have no useful insights into other editors' motives for creating or citing HLJC. Certes (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I misquoted you, it was a question, and thank you for answering it.
 * For my part I do think there are procedural and related behavioural issues, but it's not as clear as I would like and I have not raised any behavioural issue on user talk pages, with the exception of disruption in one instance, and I took that no further. User talk is the first step of course in addressing behaviour. The question I raise here is whether or not current policies/guidelines are adequate, not to seek to sanction any particular user. Specifically, wp:consensus and wp:gaming the system, with the information page at Closing discussions also relevant.
 * I'm not quite sure which essay you mean. I have written a few... this post is just the latest (sorry). Looking forward to a moratorium, and in some ways the sooner and wider the better! Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No misquote; no apology needed. I meant essay literally: I was referring to HLJC. Certes (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There was always a high risk that the HLJC essay would in a sense be a waste of time, in that the concept appeared to be just that. The hope was that it would at least centralise that waste of time and so reduce its repetitiveness! It has IMO succeeded in this, and has even turned up some relevant stuff in addition. You do have to dig a bit to find it. (-> Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just copy-pasted below in single brace-brackets, so as not to confuse with the current dialogue on this page, this priceless thread between Andrewa and myself on the Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion page:{
 * 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 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)

} Castncoot (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * And I'm glad that you newly acknowledge that I'm being reasonable. All good. (-> Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Another way forward
From above:

''*:::::::::::::::No. I have had nothing to do with that essay, it has to do with the City being currently covered in the New York topic article (the article whose page we are on) for multiple factual reasons. Wikipedia has broad overview articles and more specific article, the current New York article gives us that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)''

This to me suggests another way forward, and again I don't know why I did not think of it before as it's not the first time that someone has suggested that the article currently at New York already covers the city (and that's an understatement, there have been a great many such claims).

If the article at New York already covers the city as well as the state, shouldn't the lede reflect this scope? It currently reads ''New York is a state in the Northeastern United States and is the 27th-most extensive, fourth-most populous, and seventh-most densely populated U.S. state. New York is bordered by New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the south and Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont to the east... with New York'' bolded in the first sentence per the MOS (I have removed other formatting).

The second paragraph then reads With an estimated population of 8.55 million in 2015,[8] New York City is the most populous city in the United States and the premier gateway for legal immigration to the United States... but without bolding of New York City... again per the MOS I would suggest, I thought of bolding it but that doesn't really work as there's a separate article on New York City.

Shouldn't there be a first paragraph before both of these, setting out the real scope of the article, if it includes both the state and the city?

If we could get consensus to add this first paragraph, then I think all the problems would go away. It would require some reworking of the article, but that would be nothing compared to the link-fixing exercise already under way (and which would be unaffected), and nothing particularly urgent.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, in fact the way it is now is just purrrrfect. New York describes the state, but the second para gives DUE WEIGHT to NYC. That's why it's time to close this welcome-way-overstayed discussion and MR and place a nice long, several-year moratorium already. Castncoot (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems to make no sense at all, it gives undue weight to the state, surely?


 * I suppose that we could reorder the paragraphs, and put the city first. That would work, but not as well IMO.


 * Agree that closing the move is overdue. Not quite sure what to do about it.


 * Please try to respect the stringing convention. Your continued use of excessive indentation is disruptive, and has been previously raised on your talk page. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should move this article to New York State and move the draft at Draft:New York to here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That might eventually have much the same effect, but possibly the article histories are better preserved by this proposal.


 * But moving this article is exactly what the still-open RM is addressing. There is no point in raising it here, or anywhere else, until that RM is closed, and we see exactly what the result is. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * PS There is currently no MR, and hopefully will not be. It does probably depend on the details of the close, but I'd prefer not to have one regardless.


 * I'm very glad you linked to WP:UNDUE, which reads in part Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.... That is the issue exactly, although I had not thought of it in quite those terms, or related it quite so closely to WP:POV, the policy of which WP:UNDUE is part.


 * The whole controversy of what to put at the base name New York seems elegantly solved by fixing this particular problem, with no move required. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * (I said MR, I meant RM.) Your stringing convention is unconventional, chock full of short paras, and I personally find it very confusing. It's time for the panel, or one member of the panel on behalf of the overall panel, to close this RM for no consensus to move, and to end this state of indefinitely suspended animation for all of us. The panel has already weighed in and two of its three members ultimately found no consensus to move. We're at the endgame now. The game was waged fairly and squarely. A moratorium furthermore needs to be instituted upon any "New York"-related move discussion or aspect thereof intended to influence such a discussion (in any direction). I would hope that the move-support side will just accept their failure to build consensus to move, but themselves move on and accept an olive branch, rather than kicking and screaming to keep the lid pried open. It's time to close this excessively long and protracted RM for no consensus to move, and ASAP, please. Castncoot (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not my stringing convention. WP:THREAD reads in part Each colon (or asterisk) represents one level of indentation. Not sure what you mean by unconventional, similar conventions exist all over the Internet... most mail servers adopt one when they include the original text in a reply, for example. However, in your first post to this section, you went straight to two levels. Is there any reason for this?


 * I'm sorry you find my short paragraphs confusing. I find your long ones difficult to follow. I think we just have to live with this, but I'm very interested in other views as to which is preferable.


 * Agree that a close is overdue, as I said above. But the only kicking and screaming I've seen has been... well, do I need to say it?


 * I think the moratorium is best discussed elsewhere. This section should focus on the proposal to try to match the lede of the article to its scope. Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Same difference, as they say. The proposal, whether you realize it or not, is not only absurdly out of this world but also a sham, being the equivalent of a move. Moving one's left hand to the left from a clasped position while holding the right one still is the same as moving one's right hand to the right while holding the left one still. So instead of moving the title, now that you seem to realize that this is no longer on the table, you're proposing moving the content of the lede to achieve the exact same effect. Sorry, nobody's going to fall for such a ploy. But thanks for alerting people to this "proposal", as it'll now need to be watched for in the umbrella moratorium as well. Castncoot (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not a sham. Even if it fails to gain significant support, it will at least explore some of the claims made by opponents of the move, and in particular that the current New York article gives us something to do with the City being currently covered in the New York topic article (see the top of this section). This section has already taught me a lot, and I'm hopeful of learning more.


 * My motives are mainly to improve Wikipedia (and to work within policies and guidelines to do so), but another reason I contribute to Wikipedia is that I learn myself in the process. I admit I am puzzled by yours. You seem passionately determined to impose a local dialect. Your only hope of doing this is to avoid consensus, but this has worked remarkably well. And of course a no consensus close and a moratorium both represent further success. But do you really think it will work forever? What will you have achieved?


 * The problem we face can be solved in two ways. It can be partly solved by changing our naming conventions to allow this dialect to be used in preference to general common usage. That would not be a major change, it would merely mean extending WP:ENGVAR and/or WP:TITLEVAR to clearly cover this case. It is currently borderline at best.


 * A better way, IMO, is to change the article structure so that the article at New York does cover what most of the world means by New York. I have only just realised, prompted by the comments quoted at the top of this section, that this again can be achieved in two ways, both of which seem legitimate. These comments also suggested to me that the changes needed for this second solution, of matching the scope to the title rather than the other way around, should not be difficult or offensive to the oppose camp (or team as you have called them). You seem to disagree with that! But do you see how I could take that meaning, and seen it as offering a hope of consensus?


 * A move is still probably the best solution. But it seemed to me logical to at least explore this other option. Not to you? Andrewa (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just in case people are wondering why user:Castncoot is so upset, I'm wondering too, but have no fear that I am about to do anything rash! It seemed a logical way forward to me, but as nobody has supported the idea, nothing will happen. I hope this is not just the result of some not altogether flattering posts above!

It does IMO show that the oppose side (or team as Castncoot said) is not being terribly logical... if further evidence were needed. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Immediate moratorium on "New York"-related article title discussions
Why are we still discussing this? The answer is tautological: The discussion persists, because we are continuing the discussion. There is nobody forcing us to continue these circular conversations, and we can decide for ourselves to just stop. If we want to "get back to other things", we can! A lot of us already did!

What I'd like to propose is a six-month moratorium on discussions related to the "New York" article title, broadly construed, even if the official Requested Move remains in limbo. Let's face it, it's seeming less and less likely that any official closure is going to occur there, and I think supporters of a move should probably admit that there's little chance of it being closed in support of a move (search your feelings, you know it to be true). However, a few caveats:


 * 1) Any significant change at the RM, enacted by any of the closing administrators, will render this moratorium void. (With the understanding that discussion should focus on implementation of any clarified decision, followed by a new moratorium.)
 * 2) Discussions related to the ongoing efforts by  to fix incoming links via redirects should continue. BD2412 is doing fantastic work fixing this actual problem, and updates and coordination of the effort shouldn't be hampered.
 * 3) As an open RFC, the section above (RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?) should remain open until closed per that process. (Caveat added Antepenultimate (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC))
 * 4) Hopefully it goes without saying, but discussions can continue on user talk pages, if people are interested in continuing to gather evidence for their case, or just can't live without arguing about this.

Otherwise, if this proposal succeeds, currently ongoing discussions should be closed with a note pointing to this discussion, which should then also be closed.

Essentially, I believe started the first post-RM discussion (above) in good faith, and if the discussion had stuck to the narrow topic proposed, I doubt there would be much of an issue. I'm a little more ambivalent about some of the sections that followed. Predictably, every one of those sections has devolved into the same tired arguments by (mostly) the same cast of characters, posting prolifically past each other. Some of the interchanges have been getting testy at times, and for what? Is there really any doubt where most of the above editors stand on this issue, or the likelihood of them changing their minds?

I can't be alone in having made a conscious decision to stop engaging: I said my piece at the Move Review, then at the Requested Move, and a few other places in this nebulous conversation, though I have purposely stayed silent since the RM in an attempt to respect the process. I consider my part played and my thoughts on the matter available to anybody who may care. I'm asking the rest of you to join me in non-RM editing bliss until such time as clarity is provided at the RM, or a nice, relaxing cool-off period has passed. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Above, we're finally making progress. There is overwhelming consensus that New York State is not the primary topic of New York. It's beyond foolish to intentionally freeze discussion that is obviously a huge step toward consensus. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as an open RFC, that should continue. I've modified my proposal (hopefully soon enough to do so), with apologies. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why issue a 6 month hold when we're actively progressing toward consensus? ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because, while the outcome of that RFC could be used in a future RM, it cannot effect the one that is "ongoing" in it's strange, zombie-like fashion. And these discussions just aren't productive; even the RFC continues to show the remarkable disconnect between supporters of a dab page, and supporters of NYC at the base topic. It's the same thing that happened at the RM, and I don't really see the same degree of progress that you do, I mostly just see more "Yes it is" and "No it isn't" type arguments, and the same paucity of evidence for either side. Support for an eventual moratorium was unquestionably high at the RM and above, and if the RM closure remains dangling, starting a moratorium now will actually allow those who really, really want a move to occur to continue again sooner than they could otherwise. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The RM still hasn't been closed, but at this point that's a moot point. We almost always determine article titles based on primary topic. With consensus that this isn't the primary topic, it makes more sense to start a fresh RfC with that evidence of community consensus against this being the primary topic. This new consensus significantly impacts strength of arguments because it forces opposers to a move to either find a policy or guideline supporting the current naming structure or have their opinions discounted accordingly (as should have happened since the beginning). ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of that is debatable, even if I agree for the most part. In fact, a lot of that has been debated, several times. A break is needed to allow for "consensus can change" type arguments, since these continuous discussions (this page, the MR, the RM) can all be considered fair game when evaluating if any consensus currently exists. And really, some sort of coalescence needs to happen around either the dab option or NYC option, or there really won't be consensus for what move to make, even if NYS is not considered primary. And oh God I fear I'm becoming part of the problem, here, aren't I. Breaking my silence was a mistake, and I'm regretting it already. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh God I fear I'm becoming part of the problem, here, aren't I? Thanks for the chuckle, I feel your pain . Seriously, discussion is healthy, as long as it doesn't perpetually run in circles, leaving everybody puzzled. Slow and tortuous? Yes. Useless or hopeless? No. Will comment on your moratorium proposal below. — JFG talk 07:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the risk. Or was it in hindsight a kaiten (a tragic tactic that sunk more of their ships than ours... oops, I mentioned the war)? Seriously, thank you. Andrewa (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the RfC was a good idea but has achieved what it can. I can certainly see a consensus there. But others do not, apparently. Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bluntly? Those who are not seeing a consensus in that RfC would not see a mountain in front of their faces if it meant working toward a consensus to move this article. At some point, their opinions of whether there is or is not a consensus no longer matter. A neutral closer will quite obviously see the consensus that is there. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish it were that simple. There is much I do not understand. In my more paranoid moments I wonder whether some journalist has set this up just in order to demonstrate the unreliability of Wikipedia!
 * But I think it is an honest sociolinguistic phenomenon, one that makes it difficult for some to respect a global viewpoint. And overcoming this is not a trivial task, but I think our procedures will manage it... eventually! Andrewa (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I confess to being a bit bewildered that the RM is still open. I just imagined that the panel would have closed it by now.


 * See here above and also here above for my current thoughts on this, and of course Talk:New York/July 2016 move request long before that. I have been doing my best! Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Although I was startled by the volume of tangential comments triggered by my narrowly-scoped RFC, the very fact that an animated discussion is ongoing shows that involved wikipedians have a keen interest in seeing a well-grounded consensus emerge. Several of the previous debates about New York had eventually petered out faute de combattants as participating editors got tired or distracted by side issues. Failed debate after failed debate have cemented the decade-long "no consensus therefore keep the admittedly quaint status quo" default position. For the first time we have a concerted effort to steadily find remedies to the many issues arising from this legacy titling, so that shutting down further discussions at this stage would actually be counter-productive. It may take a few more months to reach an acceptable outcome to this debate, and whatever that outcome is, that will be better than the very visible puzzlement, frustration and borderline anger at the current situation. — JFG talk 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am very glad you raised the RfC. In hindsight it is a shame that the MR result was to relist rather than just to overturn, but given that, I thought that following that decision through with a new RM was the only course. Again in hindsight, it would have been far better to have raised several RfCs, the most important being the one you have now raised. I will not be so naive next time around. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Humour – Ironically, some of the most vocal proponents of a moratorium are also some of the most prolific and repetitive writers in the very discussions they'd like to have stopped. (Not you,, I appreciate your self-imposed restraint.) — JFG talk 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think they'd like to remove this page from their watchlist, setting a nice timer to re-enact the thing in six months time, but can't quite bring themselves to do that while the conversation rambles on. Perhaps if we ban everyone from conversing, we can all go and spend a bit of time with our loved ones before coming back to resume the debate at a later date. Emblem-extra-cool.svg &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. Well said. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support with regret and subject to the exceptions above. I still hold a glimmer of hope that policy-based arguments may convince some if not all of the opposition. But I said my piece months ago and want this page off my watchlist. That's only going to happen with a formal closure that all contributors will respect. If the panel don't feel able to wrap up the debate, let's find a neutral party who can. Of course, I support the disambiguation efforts and am happy to help once the bots have reduced the workload. I would like to see the resolution of primary topic continue, though I can understand why others may want to suppress that discussion. Certes (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * None of the panel see a consensus supporting the current situation. None of them see the arguments opposing a move as being as strong as those supporting a move. One sees a consensus to move. It is closer than some would like us to think, and definite progress. Andrewa (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What? what? . . . this WP:Bikeshed knows no rest . . .:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * While everything Parkinson wrote is pertinant and relevant to everything people do, have ever done or will ever do, I'm not sure exactly what you're applying it to here. Probably all of it... yes, on that basis, agree. Andrewa (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ↑See? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Six-year moratorium on all ""New York"-move related discussions, effective immediately

 * Strongly support. There is no consensus to move. All arguments, from the majority of the adjudication panel finding no consensus to move, through our independent moderator BD2412 finding no consensus to move (and yes, they do indeed have a say over and above the other discussants), through WP:CONSENSUS, through WP:STATUS QUO, and through my technical analysis of WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, all support the fact that there is no consensus to move. This nonsense has continued and overstayed its welcome by an excessively long period lasting many months and has got to stop effectively, immediately, and stay on hold for a 25:1 ratio as great as the time it was "on". Castncoot (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually admins acting as moderators do not have any say over and above the other discussants. We merely keep the discussion within the bounds of civility and policy, and basically try to sum up the collective gravamen of the discussion. bd2412  T 16:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant - that your opinion in this context was officially descriptive, not prescriptive. Castncoot (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose for two reasons. Firstly, we can't have a moratorium without a definition of what is and is not included, and a formal closure of the debate.  Secondly, the page is in error.  It occupies a title for which it is, by consensus of those willing to discuss the issue, not the primary topic.  The word count of the opposition does not trump policy and is not a reason to prevent the mistake from being rectified in future. Certes (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries - we can define what's included and not included. But at the base minimum, the actual move discussion. Opinions like this don't change overnight or even over months; they take years to change, they move quite slowly; and opinions can move in either direction. And it's not a permanent ban by any means, only six years. Castncoot (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ONLY SIX YEARS!! ROFLMAO, you've got a bright future in stand-up comedy. — JFG talk 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK JFG, would you prefer twelve years? Castncoot (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose We need to solve this issue as soon as possible. If you has a bad President or Prime Minister would you be like let's keep them for six years, or would you try and get them out as soon as possible. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's already been solved – there's no consensus to move. Castncoot (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Their is no consensus yet. Perhaps I should offer a counter proposal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this closely. What was the consensus of the RM, anyway? epicgenius (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * None so far. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually epicgenius, two of the three panelists found no consensus to move. Castncoot (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. So I guess no consensus to move (despite two RM in recent years). I expect future RM will also end up with no consensus, maybe lending itself to a de facto moratorium for a couple of years. 23:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC) epicgenius (talk)
 * Unfortunately, you've been misled. A panel of three editors came together. Each offered preliminary views, but they never combined for a joint statement and still had not discussed as a group. In the preliminary views, one found strong consensus to move, one found no consensus to move but specifically stated they were willing to change their mind and looked forward to discussing, and the third stated that they thought the arguments to move were overwhelmingly stronger (which would normally mean consensus to move) but the close vote made them lean toward no consensus. There has been no closing statement and the result is still in limbo. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification . So I take it that the RM isn't actually closed, not that consensus hasn't be found. epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. For a long time, I was holding out hope for a formal closing statement. Not only has one not been forthcoming, but several editors (mostly those believing their side has "won") have gone so far as to claim no closing statement is necessary, which would be a novel interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT if I ever saw one. (The closers have not espoused that view, to be clear, and it appears they've simply been drawn away by real-life or on-wiki responsibilities with more importance than this dispute.) At this point, I think the RM is essentially dead and doubt any close is forthcoming. I'm hopeful, though, as the RfC above is looking like we're finally finding a strong consensus in favor of something. That is surely progress. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I stated, two of three panelists adjudicated in their statements that ultimately, at the end of the day, there was no consensus to move. Read their statements. The only subsequently active panelist beyond his initial statement has now expressed this viewpoint decidedly and multiple times that there is no consensus to move. Castncoot (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems clear you haven't read what I wrote, so I'll copy it here. "A panel of three editors came together. Each offered preliminary views, but they never combined for a joint statement and still had not discussed as a group. In the preliminary views, one found strong consensus to move, one found no consensus to move but specifically stated they were willing to change their mind and looked forward to discussing, and the third stated that they thought the arguments to move were overwhelmingly stronger (which would normally mean consensus to move) but the close vote made them lean toward no consensus." I'll break it down so you have no doubt about what that means. I've said that two of the closers appeared to be leaning toward no consensus to move. I stated one of those said they may reconsider after discussion - a discussion which never actually happened. I also stated that one of the other closers provided analysis of the arguments that strongly appeared to support a finding of consensus, but that he was leaning no consensus due to the quantity of votes (something with explicitly doesn't factor into consensus, per our policies). Based on what he said, that opinion could very easily be challenged at a move review - something I would have done if not for the fact that there hasn't been a close yet. We've also been over the fact that WP:ADMINACCT requires administrator (or non-admins acting in administrative roles) to be accountable to the community, which at the very least requires a closing statement. No closing statement, no close. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So we spend the next six years here in no consensus-land instead of in a moratorium, where we can actually spend more time editing other Wikipedia articles or taking care of real-life commitments. Makes sense. I'm up to that. Have you found an actual consensus to move by the panelists, Rob? Your ideology shows through, and you just weaken your case further. Castncoot (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose and trout proposer, given that this has been brought up repeatedly and never found consensus. It was last brought up on this very page roughly 24 hours ago. It's funny how those with weak arguments had no interest in discussion during the RM, appeared frequently to gloat or attack any closer who disagreed with their view once the discussion was closed, disappeared again whenever quality of arguments were discussed after the RM was hatted, and now make a magical reappearance when we're taking steps toward showing that there is broad community consensus that their arguments were not good in the form of the above RfC. Must be a coincidence, I suppose. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, this is way too drastic. Rather we can try to design the RFC better. I see that there is broad support towards moving "New York" to a disambiguation page. I would suggest designing an RFC specifically for this. I can help out if required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no consensus for moving, period, including to the undesirable option of a dab page. Castncoot (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Their is consensus upcoming, even if you don't agree with it. The dab page isn't undesirable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there's absolutely no consensus that there is no consensus, nor any consensus as to whether or not consensus on this exists. Andrewa (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, that's the surest sign of no consensus. Castncoot (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand consensus, frankly. No consensus proves nothing, and claims of no consensus perhaps less. It's an interesting modality that has defeated all attempts to schematise it, AFAIK (and there have been many... hmmm that last link is to a DAB, we really need something at schema (logic)). wp:creed Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support provided all participants (broadly interpreted) accept a topic ban on New York (broadly interpreted) and on RM and related policy and guidelines (broadly interpreted) for the entire period of the moratorium, and for a reasonable buffer period afterwards, and each post a reasonable bond (in Swiss francs) as surety. This topic ban to extend to offline activities (broadly interpreted) such as drinking in any bar or picnicking (broadly interpreted) in any park (broadly interpreted) within 300 kilometres of New York (broadly interpreted) whether or not such premises are frequented by other Wikipedians or by any New Yorkers (broadly interpretted) or any others where the topic may (naturally or by contrivance) be deemed (by anyone, broadly interpreted, whether sane or insane, drunk or sober) socially acceptable (or otherwise). This temporary ban to also extend to their children and other relations (both blood and social), employers and employees (broadly interpreted), to the seventh generation (bonds to be negotiated case by case). (-> Think of the time that will save us all!
 * Oppose otherwise. Good try. (On second thought, could do better.) Andrewa (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I support your very broad moratorium, Andrewa! On the serious side, how about you and I, being the de facto leaders of our sides, respectively, start to work on a mutual agreement to get this RM closed for no consensus and delve into finding a moratorium length that we both agree on? BD2412 can continue to be the moderator. We can then open it up to the whole forum. This way we can all take a break and use our time to tend to other things more usefully until we decide it's time that it would be fair and reasonable to revisit this issue. That would be the mature and wise thing to do here, for everyone's sanity. Leaving this RM open to hang indefinitely is cruel and unusual punishment for everybody and certainly wouldn't embody the spirit of Wikipedia; it's also simply irresponsible. The problem with not having a moratorium would be that one wiseguy will then bring this topic up the very following day after the RM is closed. I also don't understand why Newyorkbrad is not intervening at this (over)extended point. He had said he wanted to give the other two panelists some more time to attend to other summer activities, etc., but that was well over a month ago, and we're entering a new season, in fact. I'm sure he'd be well within his purview to close this RM out officially on behalf of the whole panel, since it's clear that the others are deferring to him, as evidenced by their exceedingly prolonged silence. Castncoot (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No one had followed up with me on this in weeks, nor did I hear from the other panelists in response to my pings to them, so I took it that the "no consensus" outcome had been accepted. I don't think any more "paperwork" should be required on this point, as the lack of a consensus is pretty darn clear at this stage. As for a moratorium on further move requests, there certainly should be some wait before this issue comes up again, but six years would be unprecedented and extreme. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that the RM is now officially closed? I'm interpreting (and have for a while) that the RM is officially closed, based upon your statement(s). But for the sticklers on the move side, can you please hat the RM discussion off? Otherwise they'll never let it go. I'm sure we discussants can agree on the length of a moratorium in a separate discussion, and with far less contentiousness than the RM discussion itself. Castncoot (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please all see Talk:New York/July 2016 move request closure and Talk:New York/July 2016 move request closure. Andrewa (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, BU Rob's 13 comments show a gaping lack of experience, lack of policy knowledge, and and under-appreciation of the closer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree... but that's an excellent summary of my thoughts on several other contributors! But we're supposed to comment on the issues, not the contributor... or doesn't your experience and policy knowledge extend to that issue? Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your lack of knowledge of what a personal attack is is evident in your comments -- apparently you are now arguing that your unlearned comments throughout these discussions, regarding others' logic, were personal attacks. Really, get it together. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy at wp:personal attack starts out Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. The section headed What is considered to be a personal attack? concludes These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. (my emphasis) With me so far? Andrewa (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying you're insulted when your comments express confusion, ignorance of topics in a Dunning-Kruger fashion, and long-winded and nonsensical quibbling about facts you later acknowledge to be true and others point that out to you. Well, sorry you're insulted, but commenting on your and others comments is not a personal attack, otherwise what you want is no discussion at all, and just people to abjectly agree with the confusion, ignorance or long-windedness of your comments. Really, Encyclopedia Britannica has the bolded titles New York and New York City with following on contextual information, similar to how Wikipedia does. Wikipedia has never required titles to contain all information, just common and concise to those with familiarity in the subject, and consistency across similar subjects, all those things give us the present New York, and New York City articles. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not insulted, although I do request that you withdraw the remark about Dunning–Kruger effect. I'm just pointing out what the policy actually says. Quibbling? There's no need for that. The policy is quite clear.

Encyclopedia Britannica has editorial policies and guidelines I expect, and they follow them rather than ours. Which is logical, otherwise why would they have them? And similarly, we follow ours. In theory, anyway. (->

common and concise to those with familiarity with the subject (my emphasis) - No. Don't you wish! Our article titles are for the benefit of all readers. We are a general encyclopedia. Our article titles are chosen for the benefit of all readers, and that means all English speakers. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, your comments ignore the words of TITLE policy to demonstrate your ignorance of it, and again you make nonsensical claims inimical to our purpose. None of our content policies support your idea that the encyclopedia is written by the ignorant, based on editorial decisions made on appeal to ignorance -- our content policies are to the contrary - and think about it, your appeal to ignorance makes no sense in writing an encyclopedia. If nothing else search for familiar and encyclopedic register in TITLE policy, hopefully that won't be too taxing.  Then too, we go to other encyclopedias and sources (the opposite of your appeal to ignorance), precisely because that's the basis for a real consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, haven't you realized by now that Alanscottwalker is the foremost living authority on WP:TITLE and that therefore anyone who disagrees with him is nonsensical and ignorant? older ≠ wiser 14:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Heavens no. Only when they display ignorance and nonsense in their comments do I respond to tell them so, especially when they have made the special effort to make them to me, and appear to deliberately represent words in policy are not there. Because of that, there is particular reason why my comments on those matters here are most often in response to one other's comments. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Wikipedia isn't written by the ignorant, but it is written for readers who feel ignorant about a particular topic and wish to broaden their knowledge—assuming of course that the relevant article is at the title where these non-subject-experts are seeking it. Certes (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now that is odd, your hypothetical ignorant won't, and can't even begin know what to look for. Really, you sell people short - no one of any modicum of reason who is even mostly ignorant of New York will go, 'oh, my god, there is a city in New York called New York City, my world makes no sense!' Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignorant about the topic, rather than ignorant of the topic's existence. I didn't know much about the languages of New York state until I read New York, but I guessed that they might speak some, and I knew where to look for the information (once I'd noticed that New York was about the state rather than the city). Certes (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Alanscottwalker's cogent analysis of the situation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignorant about the topic? Think about that.  Any average three year-old can hold the concept in their head that New York City is in New York, an accelerated three-year old will learn and be taught it. By the time they can read, have access to an English dictionary and study relevant topics in formal schooling at a very young age, they will know it. It seems disrespectful of people to expect they can't deal with such a simple concept, and that their cognitive faculties are so deficient. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The critical point of a proper navigation structure is not just that readers will know how concepts are related, but that they will be able to find their respective articles easily. It is well known that Wikipedia hatnotes are hard to read, and they are not taught at the nursery school. Also large articles take a long time to download and render on mobile devices on slow connections. Diego (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you somehow get the impression that I was saying we write articles for nursery schoolers? We do not, and in fact the gist of my point was clearly the opposite of that.  Obviously, we write our articles for those with educated facility in the English language - just run some reading level calculations on articles if you question that - such calculators are free on the internet.  As for your personal dislike of hatnotes, here is not the place to change the consensus that they are very useful in navigation.  As for load-time, we do not change what the English language says the primary meaning of New York is because our technology is poor - that is backwards. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The primary meaning of New York, in the English language, is not the state. The RfC hasn't closed yet, but I think we've established that fairly conclusively, even if we don't yet have consensus for a page move. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * After all this time, are you seriously unaware that the English language has dictionary that list definitions from primary (the state) to secondary (the city) and that it has encyclopedia that title New York under the title New York. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that the naming of articles and their placement in the article space, in case of naming collisions such as this one, per our naming policy is primarily concerned with the ability of readers to reach the article they're looking for, not merely the article that editors have decided to write first and promote later. I don't deny that hatnotes are useful navigation tools despite their awkwardness, but the WP:DAB guideline clearly prefers disambiguation pages in those cases where there is no primary topic. Diego (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly support. I have been too busy again lately to keep up with this discussion, but I fully concur with the suggested moratorium. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Coolcaesar, that's strong support for a Six-year moratorium on all ""New York"-move related discussions, effective immediately, am I right? Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't you guys be building a proper RfC if you want this to have any effect? This conversation cannot be binding if it is not advertised through the official channels, except to those who voluntarily abide by it. As much as it would make the next RM easier to the rest of us, I don't think that's what you intend. Oh, and posting the RfC question with a neutral wording wouldn't hurt, either. Diego (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the problem is that a proper RfC might lead to consensus, even more so if it was neutrally worded. Silly! Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not reasonable to require that we formally convene another discussion to discuss how soon we will again discuss the subject we just finished discussing. Excessive process and procedure for their own sake need to be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm the first one that likes to keep process lightweight and informal when there are minor disagreements among a few reasonable participants who work hard to reduce their differences and find a common ground. But in a heated debate between dozens of editors holding irreconciliable positions, not following any process is doomed to fail. Any one that arrives later and is forced to maintain the moratorium would have reasons to complain that they have not been given a chance to participate in the debate, moreso as it affects pages where it has not been announced; and they would be right to get this decision overthrown. Diego (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Well put. Voluntary abstention is looking better and better, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Newyorkbrad. In any case, I think we have moved on, both on the matters of primary topic and of the proposed moratorium, and any further action on the part of the panel to contribute to those two discussions will just complicate things. You are welcome to try of course, just my advice. Andrewa (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

São Paulo discussion
Hi all

Just seen this discussion at Talk:São Paulo, which is basically the same thing as this one. Global city, contained in a larger state. The New York case was mentioned a couple of times there too. But it looks like the !vote is tending towards "oppose", which means that HLJC does not apply in that case, just as (in my opinion!) it shouldn't apply here either. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not on point. Only an extreme minority are proposing New York City be moved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In Riven, writing with precious ink creates reality. But here it just creates illusion. With some success, it must be admitted. Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What you said is true, but deceptive. This talk page is for the article New York, which the extreme majority are proposing to move. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite the weird cheer-leading, there is nothing deceptive about it. New York and New York City has natural disambiguation in the encyclopedic register, which TITLE policy favors -- other topics, not so.  The other discussion is a move a city discussion to made-up disambiguation, which is what parentheses are, and there is resistance to that, just as there is here.  When you analyse this page and the mistakes of history, mistakes of facts, ivotes based against policy ('this is what I think of'), augments from ignorance, and odd claims that it has something to do with magic that New York City is in New York, the natural disambiguation and encyclopedic topic relationship of New York and New York City still stands.  Only an extreme few want the non-policy based WP:OR of a new New York article, and while many want a disambiguation page, instead of an article, they are literally exalting form over substance, because the New York article provides the same substantive disambiguation a list would, with greater information and encyclopedic context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which would be a fantastic argument, if that was our policy. But it is not. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that where there is no primary topic we disambiguate. We don't just pick one or other title on the grounds that it's better for some users and the rest can go through a hatnote. That isn't WP policy. There are several good reasons for it as well - (1) disambig pages are usually much smaller than articles, so the inconvenience of getting to one (particularly in low bandwidth environments) is less; (2) the reader is less likely to think they've actually arrived at the correct place and start reading the wrong article, and (3) incoming links from other articles can be easily be picked up where people wikilink to the wrong title. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your 'that is not our policy' is just plain false. You literally have to ignore all of policy to to make your unfounded claim that there is only one way. As for your supposed benefits, they pale in comparison to context of encyclopedic significance based on real metrics, which is a primary valence in the concept of ptopic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a quick reminder: natural disambiguation states that natural titles should be "unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear". Since "New York" is not unambiguous, it is not a valid natural disambiguation title per WP:NCDAB. Diego (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The type of disambiguation you are referring (go to the policy) only arises when two topics must arguably have the same title (also called name) -- these topics we are dealing with have never had the same title (and have never needed the same title), they have always been naturally disambiguated in the plain meaning of the term and at the commonnames where they have been recognized.--Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "The type of disambiguation you are referring (go to the policy) only arises when two topics must arguably have the same title" Says who? WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT states the opposite (The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term) - so disambiguation applies even when the ambiguous term is not the title for all the articles involved; and WP:PRECISION is unambiguously clear and precise in its explanation that a title should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article (which "New York" doesn't do), with the exception of primary topics (and it's obvious that we don't have consensus that New York (state) is one). Diego (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (ed. con.) Disambiguation Title policy says. Disambiguation only arises when: "It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles."  New York is not and never has been used for other articles, same with New York City because they are already and always have been naturally disambiguated topics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case New York does have other meanings, so it is not possible to use it for the state according to the sentence you quoted (also see how it says "may have been used", not "has been used"; you won't argue that "New York" may have been used for New York City should that article have been created first, or do you?). Disambiguation applies to the possibility to use that title for more than one existing article, and PRECISION makes it unsuitable for the state (you haven't said anything that contests that part of the WP:TITLE policy even if we may disagree on how WP:DAB should be interpreted). Diego (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Practically every word has multiple meanings (eg., Apple), we still use them for titles when the are topically common, concise, natural, etc. they naturally disambiguate (eg. Apple Inc. or New York City), as for precise, millions of people and articles call New York, New York everyday and have for years, it is exactly as precise as it needs to be under policy for a US State but no more, especially since the New York City topic is naturally discussed at length in the New York topic article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, that's what we have the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy for. The fruit is the primary topic for Apple, but the state is not the primary topic for New York. The city may be discussed as part of the state article in a WP:SPLIT hierarchy, but the topic of the current article is nevertheless the state, which is not the topic that should be placed under that name if we strictly adhere to the naming policies and guidelines - it is not precise enough as it needs to be under policy for all the meanings of the term. "New York" is not unambiguous, no matter how you try to twist the wording of the policy. Diego (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York article covers all the places, people, history of New York, etc., etc. including New York City, it is precisely precise enough for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you mean that Draft:New York covers all of those; the page currently at New York is just about the state. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I don't mean that. We are not here to make things up, and its plainly false that New York City and other places of New York, its people, history etc. is not covered in the New York article. They are covered in New York. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that they are covered, but clarifying that they are merely covered briefly because they belong to a state called New York and not because they are called New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At best they're covered at an overview level appropriate for a state article, rather than in the detail appropriate to a city article. By that logic, we can AfD all geography articles other than Universe. Certes (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Clarification added later: this is a response to Alanscottwalker's comment "The New York article covers all the places..."
 * You must have misunderstood my logic. My very argument is that it is merely what's appropriate for a state article. The fact that one can be included in the others' article does not make that article a primary topic, but merely that it covers a more broad geographical area. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it appears they misunderstand an encyclopedia, and covering topics encyclopedically, otherwise they could not make that absurd last sentence. We don't AfD anything, just cover New York encyclopedically - all its people, places and on and on, as we do, and cover New York City encyclopedically too, just as we do for thousands upon thousands of topics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What a wall of blah blah blah. São Paulo, the city, is the primary topic in every Wikipedia except Portuguese, where the state is the primary topic. Just as NYC is primary for New York everywhere but in English. No point in over-analyzing this, you know it goes against page views, and there is some fuzzily-defined criteria "higher-level jurisdiction" that supports it. It's just the way it is; deal with it. I'm sure that there are editors in Brazil who'll fight tooth and nail to keep the state São Paulo primary in their native language as well. wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * On the brighter side, this will all be archived for as long as Wikipedia exists and perhaps far longer. In the year 2525 perhaps the Martian Institute of Waffle (a subsidiary of Wikiversity Graduate School) will hold an Interplanetery Conference on the Dunning–Kruger effect as observed in Wikipedia. I'm sure User:Alanscottwalker, who brought it to my attention, and I will both get mentions (one way or the other... not sure I want to know), and maybe even one or two others. Digital immortality! (-> Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Should a DAB ever be at a base name
It's suggested above and several times previously in this discussion that, on principle, the DAB should not be at the base name New York.

I didn't take this too seriously at first, it seemed so obviously contrary to our well-established policy, guidelines and practice. But it keeps coming up, sometimes forcefully, and has also been raised on at least two recent, seemingly unrelated RMs.

Consensus can change. So it seems good to me to have a centralised discussion on this. Where? Andrewa (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about a generalized discussion on disambiguation page placement, I think that should be at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. bd2412  T 00:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify the scope. If there's a primary topic then the dab should not be at the base name anyway, so I assume this suggestion applies when there's no primary topic. Should the discussion propose what would go at the base name instead of the dab?  The article which was the least bad candidate for primary topic when we decided that none of them qualified?  Nothing, and dump the reader in the search page?  An overview or broad concept article?  For example, where should Springfield or TLA take the reader, if not to a dab page? Certes (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

See these two recent !votes for example. Now one has since retracted, and the RM (which I proposed) has closed as move, but the fact that they put this argument forward shows either that the policy and guidelines are not being read, or that they're not seen as relevant. Andrewa (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a vastly different proposition than the typical disambiguation page. bd2412  T 02:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree.


 * The interesting thing isn't so much the particular case as the principle that the DAB at the base name was a bad idea even if there was no primary topic. It doesn't serve readers to show them a disambiguation page first, when they will be looking for one of the two almost all of the time... (my emphasis).


 * And there's a perhaps minor point of terminology... Either the novel should be the primary topic with a hatnote to the disambiguation page, or the film should be the primary topic with a hatnote. The intended meaning seems to be that either the novel or the film should be at the base name even if neither is the primary topic. I said perhaps minor because it sounds like splitting hairs, but how can we expect people to understand the policies and guidelines if they don't understand the terminology used in those policies and guidelines?


 * Agree this discussion should move to wt:disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps those !voters tacitly agree that only a primary topic gets the base name but are arguing to change WP:PTOPIC so that there is a primary topic in cases where two strong candidate topics narrowly fail the current test (for some values of narrowly). That's subtly different from wanting a non-primary topic at the base name, but still within the realm of WT:Disambiguation. Certes (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A couple of random thoughts on this: (1) there might be a difference between how you'd handle the case where two topics are co-primary with all other topics being minor in comparison (as is the case with New York), or indeed there are only two so-named articles on WP, versus the standard disambiguation page between three or more equally meritous topics. Anecdotally, I think lot of people actually already misunderstand the WP:TWODABS rule as thinking we should always impose one or other as a primary topic page in a even when there isn't naturally one. And (2) Britannica actually adopts the "no disambiguation pages" approach mentioned above, whereby the default ios always just a search page. That's what you get for plain old "New York" over at Britannica: with the two main entries as the top listings. Personally I wouldn't see much advantage to this, as the dab page aims to do the same job but better, since it is human generated and has specific information go guide readers rather than a result of a search engine.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Re "English (only)"
Is this entry in the box of languages spoken in New York State meant to indicate that only 69% of New Yorkers speak English; or is it meant to indicate that 69% of New Yorkers speak only English? Please clarify. 73.162.218.153 (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The latter: 69% speak English and no other language. 31% speak other languages, though many of those 31% also speak English. Wikipedia usually avoids using the first meaning ("wow, that figure's low!"), especially in tables of statistics. Certes (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Next RfC
A very interesting and thorough close by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. 

In particular I note ''The discussion is somewhat leaning towards the city being the primary topic for this title, but I not inclined to declare this a consensus in this discussion seeing as a) this RfC is not about this question and b) there are a number of opinions who don't consider the city predominant or at least not predominant enough (there are also some procedural issues about voting paradoxes arising from judging this "city question" here at the same time as the "state question"). I advise that this question be followed up with another RfC, along with any discussion on whether "city of new york" refers to the 5 boroughs or to some broader entity, subject to the caveat in my last dot point.'' (my emphasis)

There are a number of ways in which this follow-up RfC could be drafted. The obvious one is Is New York City the primary topic of "New York?" with the Wikilink making the question explicitly refer to the scope of that article.

There are also a number of other RfCs that might be raised on other talk pages. One on the way in which no consensus to move should be assessed so as to avoid circular argument comes to mind. Another relevant discussion is the question of whether a DAB at a base name should be avoided, which has come up in several seemingly unrelated recent RMs. And of course there is still the good old HLJC.

But this is real progress. Just a few says ago User:Castncoot was still claiming that there was no consensus that NYS is not the primary topic of New York, as has been claimed throughout the discussion by several others as well. We now have a ruling that this consensus does exist.

Did it always exist as I have always believed? That question, fortunately, is now academic. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the close, but just hold off on any more RFCs for a while. Others are just worn out. oknazevad (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. A fine line must be walked to eventually sort this out. Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In no way is that a fair ruling of consensus. The question was loaded, the votes were far, far fewer than in any of the move discussions, and there were even several abstentions due to the lopsided nature of that RfC. Ignore that result, and perhaps consider redoing it in an honestly unbiased manner. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way was the question loaded?
 * I see absolutely no reason to ignore that result. But if you can substantiate your claim that the RfC was not done in an honestly unbiased manner, that's a very serious allegation.
 * And overturning an RfC is I'm sure possible. So if you wish to ignore this one, that is what you now need to do. Andrewa (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned here, MJ. It's actually a favorable ruling, read the fine print. I don't want to say anything more than that. Best, Castncoot (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you then agree that it's a good close, and a fair ruling of consensus, was conducted in an honestly unbiased manner, and should not be ignored? Yes or no, four questions. Andrewa (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, unsure, yes, and yes. Castncoot (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. User:Ɱ and others please take note. Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume from this, that will be supporting a move from New York to New York (state) as and when we debate the issue again...?! Cue raucous belly laughter and much rejoicing and jollity... Emblem-extra-cool.svg Noto Project Clinking Beer Emoji.svg Cheers everybody.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support the move from New York to New York (state), if not for the article then at least for links to the article which clearly refer to the State and not another locality. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In your dreams, Amakuru, but thanks for the humor! Castncoot (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it really not obvious? You don't go around asking if New York state is the primary topic just like you don't go around asking if Hillary's the best candidate. Fair and objective polls need to ask questions neutrally, for example in asking "What is the primary topic?". Otherwise there is a much larger potential for bias, especially when voting and counting votes. Due to this, many votes tamper with concluding effectively. As well, the AfC received very few votes, far fewer than in the past New York AfCs, and as far as I know, it was not brought up in Wikiprojects, so key contributors to these topics were not notified. A fair and balanced poll must be conducted here, with significant community input, in order to properly determine a consensus. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi)
 * Agree that fair and objective polls need to ask questions neutrally. But the question Is NYS primary? is just such a question. On the other hand, had we asked What is the primary topic?, as you suggest, that would be a biased and loaded question, because we have yet to determine that there is a primary topic, as that question presupposes. We should instead first ask Is there a primary topic?, as that question is still open. Feel free to raise an RfC if you want it answered.


 * If consensus is reached that the answer to that question is no, ie consensus that there is no primary topic, then we'd pretty much be ready for a new RM, to move the DAB to the base name (but I'm not going to raise it yet of course, as one of only two people who have yet signed up for a moratorium, and the only one to make an unconditional commitment). But if the answer is "yes", then for completeness we'd want to then ask "Is NYC the primary topic?", and if the answer is "yes" then again we're ready for an RM, to move the NYC article to the base name. On the other hand, if the answer is "no" then we have a problem! It's even more complicated if we get any "no consensus either way" decisions.


 * That's how to conduct a fair and comprehensive set of polls. As I say, feel free to do it. I think that under WP:SNOW it's not necessary, but we do take a risk if we go to the next RM without doing all of that work first.


 * Actually Condorcet has an undeserved reputation. He's remembered for identifying how democracy can fail. His work was actually about how it can succeed. Recommended reading. The process we are following, and the longer one I described above, are both Condorcet methods which means they both satisfy the Condorcet criterion. (And yes, it even applies to consensus voting, or should I say !voting, systems, which didn't then exist, but he was a good mathematician, so good I'd even call him a logician, and he identified his assumptions very well and his work is valid wherever these are true.)


 * We do have consensus that NYS is not the primary topic. There is no point in denying that.


 * And that does IMO pose a problem for those who wish NYS to remain at the base name. To see how big a problem, just read the initial (and pretty much final it seems) comments at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request and ask, had this RfC result then been available, might what Fut.Perf calls a glaring and damaging error have been corrected there and then? Andrewa (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please just WP:DROPTHESTICK, already! oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, quit your ridiculous argumentation past the failed RM. As for your response to me - honestly I have no idea how you became an Administrator. How can you not understand how loaded of an RfC question that was? How can you not understand how so few voted in that RfC, receiving no attention from prominent WikiProject members, and having no advertisements on WikiProjects or other noticeboards? This is like that first requested move - slyly done and closed quickly to avoid large-scale voting and consensus. Those problems are certainly crucial enough to render any conclusion void. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please moderate your language, and avoid personalising the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your assertion, this RFC . — JFG talk 12:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree that the debate itself has come to a natural end as your linking to that essay on dead horses would indicate. We will see.


 * I appreciate the desire of many to take a break from this. That's why I proposed a twelve month moratorium on RMs, and six months on related discussions. I'd still like that, but my proposal has met with no support. On the one hand, we have extravagant proposals for a vague general moratorium that could impede unrelated discussions and last for up to six years, which never had any chance IMO. On the other, some want a new RM in the minimum time, and even suggest that the minimum time period has already expired.


 * By all means revive some sort of moratorium proposal, but IMO it's far deader than this discussion (which I guess is like being a bit more pregnant). Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want there to be a break in discussion, then stop discussing. No one is forcing you to. Don't start topics that presume a "next RFC" when no one else asked for one. No one else has to tell you there's a moratorium for you to do that. That's your choice. oknazevad (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not quite that simple. It seems inevitable that there will be another RM, the only question is when. There has been no consensus even on a moratorium on that, and there's a lot of preliminary work to do if we are to achieve consensus next time around. Andrewa (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose next RfC until there is a driving need to hold it. On the question of primary topic for NY, it is actually out of scope for Wikipedia-PT theory, because NYS and NYC are not independent topics.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think in that case I'll raise the next RfC as Should American Wikipedians be permitted to !vote on RMs and RfCs?, since I have one oppose vote already! (->
 * Seriously, that last point is an interesting one, but I'm not convinced. It brings us back to WP:TOP and the good ol' HLJC. Do you then mean that the city of Lima is not the primary topic of Lima. for example? It is not independent of the other topics at Lima (disambiguation), is it? The primary topic guideline doesn't mention any requirement for the topics to be independent that I can see. Johann Sebastian Bach is the primary topic of both Johann Sebastian Bach and Bach which redirects there, but neither he nor the topic are unrelated to his grandson Johann Sebastian Bach (painter). Andrewa (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The section WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I believe, and as I read it, implicitly assumes that the multiple topics are independent topics. It goes on to set a fairly high bar for one topic dominating the other for assignment as "PrimaryTopic".  It does not speak to the case where the multiple topics are strongly connected.  Instead, Disambiguation speaks to cases of strongly connected cases.  New York should not be a disambiguation page, although it may be a WP:DABCONCEPT page, because no reasonable reader will be aware of one and unaware of the other.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the WP:DABCONCEPT concept option as well. (Actually when I had previously mentioned DAB, I actually meant DABCONCEPT). That works best here, it helps to inform a first time reader clearly about the differences. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Writing a short WP:DABCONCEPT about the New York area would make a lot of sense, however this option did not get any traction at the move request. Perhaps with the newfound consensus on lack of primary topic, this could be proposed again? Some editors started a Draft:New York (overview) article in that spirit, but that did not get much visibility. Dissenters argue that the New York state article already acts in effect as a dabconcept… — JFG talk 12:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * re The section WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I believe, and as I read it, implicitly assumes that the multiple topics are independent topics, I dispute this. There is no such assumption, implicit or otherwise, and if there were, it would be written down as part of the guideline. There are plenty of cases where connected subjects of the same name are nonetheless treated equally at a dab page. George Bush, for example. Co-equal primary topics between father and son. Or Gone with the Wind. A movie and a musical, both based on an original book. Some try to argue that the book should be primary because it was the original, but that argument hasn't stuck, and normal WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rules apply. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amakuru, but I don't think we are in dispute so much as my statement could use clarification. Except for your apparent faith that policy documentation accurately reflects policy in practice. The Bushes became independent people. The musical and film substantially outgrew the book. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has always been difficult and awkward in broad application. And to emphasise, my statement reflects my reading, I don't assert it as accurate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to that clarification. Andrewa (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Advice from the guideline on this sort of case is lacking or unclear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then we should clarify it... I'll raise an RfC... no, maybe not... (-> Andrewa (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Going back to the more general question of concept dabs, I have to say I'm not a fan of that idea. I think much of the information would be duplicated in one or other article, and really despite every other argument made, 2/3 of all visitors to these pages are interested only in the city (given that twice as many readers go there as to the state, on average). If they wanted a broad concept article, they'd have been more likely to look in the state article, not dived straight for the city. It's not a broad concept for them, it's just all about the world famous city. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also not a fan of concept articles. There are cases where they are helpful, but these are usually concepts concerning science, technology or mathematics, for example, where a basic concept might be used in a variety of different ways each with their own articles and some general overview and context is helpful for distinguishing among them, especially for those unfamiliar with the subject area. I have a hard time seeing geographical topics benefiting from such a treatment (i.e., it is hard to see how a broad concept article would help readers distinguish the topics any better than a well-formed disambiguation page). older ≠ wiser 18:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For much of my early childhood, I knew of NYC but was unaware that NYS existed. Wikipedia wasn't around then, but I expect we have some younger readers in that position now. Certes (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And on the other hand, I can't imagine anyone knowing that NYS exists without also knowing something about NYC, can you? Andrewa (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't. This is basically why NYC should be considered the primary topic.  The fact that NYC was of international significance before NYS as now bounded existed, is consistent.  NYC was named after the (nominal) ducal land of the Duke of York, and NYS was named after the city.  Subsequently, NYC has not diminished.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At the latest RM, we did not even consider the possibility of making New York a primary redirect to the article at New York City. I don't really know why not (well, it was partly we were too busy calling names and responding to consider anything as carefully as I would have liked). It's the obvious thing to do if we don't want to have a DAB at New York but don't want to move the NYC article either. Whenever it is that the next RM arrives, I think that should be the proposal. And the move should be NYS to New York (state) rather than New York State, to be consistent with other articles about US, German, Austrian, Mexican and Sudanese states (one exception in Sudan which should probably be moved), and to avoid possible ambiguity (as in Georgia State etc). Andrewa (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But no hurry. The RfC on whether NYS is primary is progress. The idea of a primary redirect, and the argument of international consistency, are new since the last RM. There are promising discussions in progress at WT:AT and WT:Consensus. There is even a little progress on behaviour (but here is not the place to say more on that). Andrewa (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Broad-concept article
Broad-concept article is a guideline, but it doesn't reflect current practice at all, from what I can see. That may be part of the problem here.

But it's a bit hard to see. That may also be part of the problem. There's a Category:Broad-concept articles, which contains 45 articles (and doesn't include particle, which the guideline cites as the prototypical BCA), but the guideline doesn't link to it and should. Of these 45 articles, four are parenthetically disambiguated.

The guideline does link to Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles which contains 343 pages, seven, more like eight, times as many as in the category for articles that have been converted. That's quite a backlog. Is anybody working on it, I wonder? It's a subcategory of Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, which is itself the main todo list of WikiProject Disambiguation.

There's also a Category:Disambiguation pages of course, which is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia disambiguation. The guideline Wikipedia:Broad-concept article is also a member of Category:Wikipedia disambiguation. Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article also identifies the guideline page as being within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation. That talk page had been inactive for more than a year but there is activity in the last few days.

There's a second guideline at WP:CONCEPTDAB, a shortcut to a subsection of the general disambiguation guideline, so again under WikiProject Disambiguation. It ledes off If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. (my emphasis) It links to the first guideline, the nutshell of which reads A term with many related meanings should be presented as an article on the broadest understanding of the term, rather than as a disambiguation page merely listing variations on that meaning. (again my emphasis)

That looks consistent... but it's not quite. The DAB guideline section is only about terms that do have a primary topic, quite explicitly, so the DAB shouldn't be at the base name anyway. Maybe that's what the first guideline means to say too. Without this qualification, it's a bit sweeping.

But of the 343 DABs awaiting conversion, the vast majority seem to be at base names, implying that there is no primary topic. Template:Conceptdab, which has been used to mark at least some of these, redirects to Template:Dabprimary, which reads in part ''The present disambiguation page holds the title of a primary topic, and an article needs to be written about it. It is believed to qualify as a broad-concept article.'' (my emphasis)

Several things to be clarified before we can usefully apply these guidelines to New York. As a first step I'll do some tidying up by adding some links and categories, so we can at least find our way around. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Good luck. This section might be more appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article or Wikipedia Talk:Disambiguation. TBH, I'm not sure what value there is to Category:Broad-concept articles. Unlike disambiguation pages, there are no unifying principles that describe a broad-concept article. In effect, a good BCA is indistinguishable from a well-written overview article. Many of the articles in Category:Broad-concept articles look to be rejected disambiguation pages (pages that started out as disambiguation pages, but because they were problematic had a magic wand waved over them transforming them into BCAs to prevent them from showing up at Disambiguation pages with links) or something more like a WP:Set index article or list article than a BCA. older ≠ wiser 10:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree that many of the points would be appropriate on one of those other talk pages, and I m,ay well take them there in good time. But it was written for the information of those here. It actually originally read: There's no Category:Broad-concept articles and should be, I'll raise it with WikiProject Disambiguation... but I was saved some embarrassment by Show preview... behold the link, wonder of wonders, it's blue not red! Why did I not see that before... AHA, now I remember, I looked at WP:BCA, let's do that again... oh dear, it doesn't mention cat BCA... and I looked at the categories to which the the prototypical BCA belongs... OK, it's not in cat BCA. Silly me. Silly us. Work in progress. Like me. Like us. Like the rest of Wikipedia. Wonder what else is missing? Wonder what a BCA is, anyway. Hmmm, maybe so does everyone else. Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem. Progress!? Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We need WP:DABCONCEPT because people make "disambiguation pages" like Fish sandwich. It's not an ambiguous term like, say, Mercury or Seal; it's a list of sandwiches that happen to contain fish. Having an article at this title would be particularly useful if someone links to a reference to a fish sandwich without context, which rightly could mean any kind on the page without excluding any other. bd2412  T 13:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we don't need them. I'm just not a fan of how wildly inconsistent many of them are and I question whether a separate category is needed for them as there is so little they have in common. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not an advocate for the category, except perhaps as a means to track which pages have been converted from mere disambiguation pages into somewhat more informative articles. bd2412  T 14:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:BD2412, User:Bkonrad, User:Emir of Wikipedia, I am obviously a fan of that category... and I was wrong, WP:BCA does link to it, just at the bottom of the page not at the top.
 * At the very least, it would help give newcomers to the concept (like me) a better idea of what a BCA is. At best, it will help old hands to stay on the same page as to what a BCA is and should be.
 * People (including and especially you BD2412) have put a lot of work into the BCA idea. I don't want to arrogantly dismiss that (and apologies if I've done that up until now). But on the other hand it has been one of the (relatively minor) problems with RM NY. It's been hard to get a handle on exactly what a BCA is, and this has been a source of confusion and distraction (as in both diverted and moved to).
 * I hope and expect we have a few months at least (maybe six years (-> or more but probably not IMO) until the next RM. One of the things I intend to work on is to clarify the idea of a BCA in my own mind, and maybe even in the guidelines.
 * There does seem to be a big backlog as noted. Best way to get a handle on what a BCA really is, is to write a few and ask for comments at WikiProject DAB as to whether the results look OK. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that a BCA (for maintenance purposes) is a broad overview of a topic for which subtopics are sometimes referred to by the same name as the topic as a whole. I have a list of examples that I have created at User:BD2412/Contributions - Disambiguation. I would cite as prime examples of successful conversions from disambiguation page to article, Color code, Enemy, Guessing, High priest, Schedule, Size, World domination, and Worst-case scenario. You can look at each of these and wonder how they were ever disambiguation pages in the first place. bd2412  T 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that it appears as if we have different ideas as to what the broad concept article is, and that it overlap with both disambiguation and index articles. The draft that was developed as a result of the discussion on this talk page is currently at Draft:New York, however a few editors don't like this so no consensus has been achieved. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean at Draft:New York (overview), I boldly moved it some time ago, you knew that, see Draft talk:New York.


 * Much of the point of the above was going to be, if the theory is waffly let's set up a category so we can see what the practice is. But then (see above) the category was there all the time. Maybe you knew that too! Anyway, now that I've found it, I'm going to have a good look and see whether I can guess what BCA means in practice and in the opinions of those who have written them in the past. First impression is, no more consistency than the guidelines, or with the guidelines, probably less. Probably no surprise. Interested in other comments on this.


 * On that muted note, note also that the two BCA guidelines are both... well, guidelines. They represent a reasonable level of consensus and therefore authority, in theory. (And wp:Overview article redirects to one of them... my fault, I did that.) Scary. I've been thinking that achieving consensus was too hard, but in that case perhaps it's been too easy. We move on. Andrewa (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Noting that this is perhaps more relevant to other talk pages, but I need to keep track of my research somewhere and it might be of interest here... WP:BCA currently lists as examples particle, triangle center, Supreme court, Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance, Central Asia, Northern Europe, Southern United States, football, dead ball, out of bounds, and Nokia Lumia. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Now raised at WT:BCA. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"Independence"
On the topic of independence discussed above, that appears to be what some people think WP:Primary topic should say. It's not what it does say. Moreover, it's beside the point. New York State is not the primary topic of "New York" according to community consensus, as demonstrated in the above RfC. That's at least one issue closed. If you think WP:Primary topic shouldn't apply at all to topics not fully independent of each other, you're certainly welcome to try to change the guideline, but currently there is no such exception. After a large-scale discussion above, we have consensus here that "New York" is not the primary topic in the sense of the guideline, and the closing rationale (and arguments in that RfC) all apply that guideline to this article. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Stewardship vs. Ownership
There are still several issues that need to be discussed and resolved in regard to this article and its title, and as a supporter of this New York title being an imprecise title that needs disambiguation, I would like to address an apparent hasty generalization made by one or more fellow page move supporters. It can be summed up in Andrewa's statement back on 6 September in the section. Andrewa opined:

While I agree that one or two of the 22 objecting editors have exhibited strong and undeniable signs of article ownership as described in the Ownership of content policy, the vast majority of those opposing the page move should not be seen as "owners" of this page, since their civil attempts to be helpful fall moreso into the Stewardship part of the policy. I believe that is what most of the editors who continue to try to stop this page move process would mean by the quoted words above. The trick is in how to tell whether an editor is an article steward or someone who would be perceived by others as an article owner. That's not always an easy thing to cipher. And since I'm no "guru" when it comes to this, it would be helpful to me if other editors on both sides of the issues would shed some light on how they can tell if an editor is an owner or one of the stewards of an article. To be clear, on Wikipedia ownership is considered not so good while stewardship is a good thing. I'd just like to be more clear on how to tell the two apart.  Paine  u/ c  15:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree.
 * It is a very small number of editors who are exhibiting ownership, and even then not consistently. But the contributions that do attempt ownership are, in my opinion, the very ones that have made the discussion messy, and by this have hindered forming consensus.
 * Readers Digest once commented the difference between a prejudice and a conviction is you can explain a conviction without getting mad. One of the signs of stewardship rather than ownership might be that you can exercise stewardship without personal attacks. I have only challenged one editor about this on their talk pages, and that is of course the first step in addressing behaviour. So it would be inappropriate to discuss specific contributors here. I will however mention two other examples (without a diff or otherwise identifying the culprit). Firstly I was accused of being an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Secondly, yet another contributor opined To be absolutely blunt, I grow tired of the attitude apparent in your comments that somehow the people that live in the area are ignorant about the true meaning of the name; it is utterly arrogant and insulting. Simple logic dictates that they are more knowledgable about the relationships and details than someone who loves on the other side of the world.
 * I hope I have not suggested that anyone is ignorant. But both of these posts are suggesting that I am the ignorant one, and be that as it may, this is not the way to discuss things here. Both are varieties both of personal attack and of ownership. They are discussing the contributor, not the contribution, and warning me this is my patch, stay out of it.
 * If my behaviour has been at fault, again my user talk page is the first stop.
 * On the other hand, if we can carefully refrain from personal attacks of all sorts, and all (on both sides) be a bit more proactive in raising issues of behaviour on user talk pages where they belong, I think that will greatly enhance the chance of consensus. Which should be everyone's goal. To me the most disappointing aspect of this discussion is the failure of the oppose faction to make any progress that I can see towards a consensus that the New York State article should stay where it is.
 * There have been attempts. But they have been drowned out. This must stop. Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a sound formula, Andrewa, for telling the difference I think. And those who would drown out any attempts for consensus are, at best, misguided article stewards and, at worst, terribly misguided article owners.  That brings up the often subjective term "misguided".  There are times when even an article steward may go too far by failing to accept definite improvements of Wikipedia, wanting to maintain the status quo when the status quo, no matter how deeply ingrained it is, must be altered and improved.  So far, we have that article stewards are inherently helpful when trying to make other editors understand, while article owners resort to personal attacks, bullying and other disruptive behavior in an effort to get their way.  I wonder what, short of a topic ban, editors can do about such ownership behavior?   Paine   u/ c  20:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm often appalled at the behaviour that is accepted at Wikipedia. I'm too involved to do anything as an admin here, but if I see anyone accusing another editor of being an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect they are at serious risk of a 24 hour block without further discussion. It is completely unacceptable. Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. This qualifies on all three grounds. ...warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking... The users who have crossed the line here are all old hands. They know the rules.
 * But, while my raising an issue at WP:ANI got strong consensus that a warning at least was appropriate, that was the end of it. The discussion lapsed to archive after three days, with no closure and no message on the perpetrator's user talk page other than mine. I think that there is a shortage of admins policing behaviour, and confess that I haven't blocked anyone for years, or lurked on ANI. Perhaps that should change. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as you say, the editors here are old hands and know pretty much what they can get away with. A brief block would probably be rather enjoyed in the same sense as that of being a martyr of sorts.  Even if I were an admin, I wouldn't take the time to block any move opposers, and I even question the use of a topic ban, since that, too, just might backfire.  Is it too much to hope that these otherwise sterling editors would see the error of their ways?  (I shall not hold even my last breath! :>)   Paine   u/ c  01:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My limited experience indicates that blocks are a surprisingly good deterrent. Not sure about topic bans (and one of those was threatened by an admin during the last RM... but never formally requested).
 * As I said, I'm anything but uninvolved. But perhaps if I help at ANI it will free others who are uninvolved to look at behavioural problems that you or I or others might raise.
 * I don't think martyrdom is a problem. Admins are very careful not to overstep the mark, and de-sysoping is extremely rare although it does occur and it's definitely available. I think that despite some loud protests from martyrdom candidates, the reputation of admins as a whole is robust, and deservedly so. These martyrdom candidates just call attention to their unsuitability as editors.
 * The case I was closest to is Viktor van Niekerk who is now blocked indefinitely. His personal attacks on me and others, designed to promote his POV on the best tuning of the ten string guitar (which he plays incredibly well, considered by many the best in the world), were quite distressing and went completely unchecked for a long time. Another contributor he viciously attacked is the author of by far the most popular method for learning the instrument, but that method uses a different tuning in the first stages and many go no further. Being involved I was unable to do as much as I would have liked, and she is no longer a contributor. When the crunch finally came, there was no shortage of evidence, and he saw no reason to retract.
 * But the result was that we once had arguably both of the two greatest living ten string guitarists as contributors, and now have neither. Had the boundaries been set earlier, might it have been different? We will never know. Andrewa (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: why would an unresolved ANI incident get archived? Is that normal? It seems to me that all of them should be closed in some way another before arcive, even if it's an admin just saying "no further action". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was surprised, too, but that's what the bot is set up to do. No posts for three days and it's off the list, resolved or no.
 * Here is the diff and here is the archive. I did question it at the time and was invited to relist but decided not to. ANI seems overloaded as is. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Goodness. This still appears to draw the problem of wp:bludgeoning, not by the OP, thank you, who nonetheless raises not really an article issue, per wp:forum, but rather a policy issue.  RS encyclopedia and dictionary give New York as a common title/principle name for the state.  So, it should not be at all surprising that there are people who think the current and long standing set-up, New York, New York City, or New York City, New York, is fine. What has made this discussion problematic, in my view, is there were a few some who could not accept that those for who it is fine are reasoned persons, not driven by emotion but sure driven by the subjects and sources, they have been involved in and with, and by, yes, perhaps some due deference to the Wikipedian authors of these subjects over the years. For what it's worth, I will again refer to title policy that tells us that debating titles is often unproductive and there many other ways to improve Wikipedia - policy specifically warns, so being shocked now is not an option. (And no Andrewa, you were not described, your arguments were criticized, however.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...your comments express confusion, ignorance of topics in a Dunning-Kruger fashion, and long-winded and nonsensical quibbling... And you now say no Andrewa, you were not described, your arguments were criticized, however...? I think this is splitting hairs. The comment in question was completely uncalled for.
 * There are many problems with the NY RM saga. In many ways it's a perfect storm. But behaviour is one of them, IMO.
 * But this is not the place to rediscuss the RM, or to discuss your behaviour (or mine). Taking it to your user talk page. Suggest others interested in this aspect of the discussion follow us there.
 * Agree that the policy at wp:forum is very relevant and important, and I was unaware of the essay at wp:bludgeon but it says some relevant and helpful things too. Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said in my full comment, my assessment of your arguments in this matter is and was that you base them on appeals to ignorance - that is a critique of your arguments, and whether you agree with that critique or not is not what makes it called for, its still a fair critique of your arguments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, several contributors characterised the arguments of others as appeals to ignorance. This claim is also unhelpful, and may also constitute a personal attack unless very carefully worded... perhaps even then. But bringing up the D-K effect is clearly crossing the line, IMO.
 * But we may be back on-topic here. At least some of these so-called appeals to ignorance were in fact arguments pointing out that not everyone in the world sees the term New York as applying equally or even primarily to the state (as now established by RfC). Those calling them ignorant were in effect saying that it doesn't matter what the world thinks, if New Yorkers want to call the state New York, then anyone who doesn't is ignorant and should submit to re-education.
 * OK, I've put that in emotive terms! There is a valid argument to be made of that, along the lines of WP:TITLEVAR. One of the problems of the perfect storm to date is that such arguments have been drowned in a sea of rhetoric and what one of the closing panel called hyperbole (and also I will add, of personal attacks).
 * They need to be given a fair go, if we are to build consensus. But there seems to be (dare I say it) consensus that any consensus will favour a move. That's another factor in the perfect storm. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. People's arguments on the internet, one who now unbelievably claims to 'speak for the world' are most certainly in substance to be rejected, which as the close noted were basically ipsa dixit personal stories, so the close did reject them. As for referring to people as ignorant of this, that is what in substance you did, not I - my argument was that readers are smarter then they were being given credit for, that they have no problem even at the primary level understanding New York City is in New York, like Quebec City is in Quebec, Kuwait City is in Kuwait, etc. -- and some above even expressed their lack of knowledge themselves -- those are appeals to ignorance, and if you make such appeal it is most fair to call the appeal that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that the term appeals to ignorance can be justified in that way, but it's probably not a good term to use as it's far too easy to then cross the line to calling those people ignorant which is an insult, and that may be exactly what has happened here.
 * I am not claiming to speak for the world, and it is yet another personal attack to say that I am (even the term unbelievably is itself a personal attack). I am claiming that the RfC is an indication of how the world sees things (there were many previous indications, but that's now academic).
 * We don't know whether the closers rejected all such arguments. Hopefully so, there were some on both sides, I thought in fact that almost all of the oppose arguments were of that form! But one closer found valid arguments on both sides, stronger for the move but not strong enough, the second found consensus to move, the third found that the arguments overwhelmingly favoured a move but then also found no consensus. Exactly which arguments were rejected is frustratingly unclear! Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Any ignorance in this discussion is based on precisely what you and Andrewa are presently debating. Your examples are unseemly, because they translate globally to "New York City" is in the "United States" (so should "New York City" be renamed to "United States City"?).  In other words, they do not apply.  There was and is also ignorance to the global arguments in the requested move discussion, and ignorance expressed in regard to the policies and guidelines that were cited by page move supporters – things that were both "ignored" and unattended by move opposers, who didn't express nor cite any guidelines nor policies.  Finally, there has been ignorance expressed in regard to the unprecedented and uncertain outcome of this requested move.  Opposers, of course, are in complete denial and consider this all "closed".  How can that be?  We have one closer who is far too close to this issue (with "NY" in their user name, how can this not be so) and was a poor choice to be on the closing panel because of this closeness.  And this is the only panel member that contributed after the initial statements.  The other two panel members have disappeared from this discussion and have provided no further statements beyond their initial ones.  That is not a close, no not really, and anyone who argues that it is a close proposes a deeply ignorant argument.   Paine   u/ c  00:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my! To both. This is beyond ridiculous, we are not even discussing the same close. There was a close on this page that explicitly rejected the personal stories of the supports.  If anyone wants to discuss personal attacks they can do so elsewhere.  As for the rest, you really you want rehash the old long ago failed move discussion again, and again, and again.  Thanks but, no. And there is nothing to the rest of your premises that elicit agreement. (eg., Quebec City is in Quebec, is not like New York City is in the United States, it is like New York City is in New York) So, this seems done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my! right back to you! Of course this seems done to a page move opposer!  Big surprise!  How done would it be if the single, unqualified panel member had made a Moved decision, instead of the No consensus to move or not move? and the other two panel members had taken a powder?  How "done" would it seem to you then?   Paine   u/ c  01:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The ignorance in your examples is grounded in the facts that "Kuwait" is not an imprecise title, nor is "Quebec" an imprecise title. People 'round the world, when they think of "Kuwait" or "Quebec", they think of the country or the province respectively, which is why those article titles have never presented any problem.  So the continuing problem with the "New York" title is very different – it is, and always has been, an imprecise title that could apply to the state, or to pizza, or to sports teams or to the city of New York, just to name a few of numerous examples.  Imprecise titles, in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, are not to be used to title any article in this encyclopedia.  Remove the bias of the opposing arguments and this page would have been moved long ago in a heartbeat, and it definitely should be moved now.   Paine   u/ c  02:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Come now. There is no ignorance in noting and knowing New York City is in New York and Quebec City is in Quebec.  Yes.  You just have to get enough people to agree with you that it is so ambiguous, as to need a move.  That has not happened because people do not agree, perhaps because they would rather follow RS encyclopedia and dictionary and not silly claims about speaking for the world.  As for that move discussion, that has nothing to do with my statement, that failure ended months ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh there is plenty of ignorance, bias and obsession in noting and in thinking you know that "New York" is just as precise a title as is "Quebec" or "Kuwait". And your obsession is indeed powerful, which is why it must be opposed by something equally as powerful.  In fact, it must be something much more powerful.  Opposers in the page move debate (which isn't "ended", by the by, far from it) have 2/3 power, while supporters have only 1/3 power.  That's just a relational reality that stems from the fact that supporters work to get this page title moved, while opposers, who work to get this page not moved, also have the power of the "no consensus" decision, which effectively means the same as "not moved" in this case.  So move supporters are required to develop a powerful obsession of our own.  What should we be obsessed with?  Should we become obsessed with moving this page title?  Hardly.  Oh yes, that is a part of it; however, moving this page title is not what we must become obsessed with.  Our obsession that we must develop is one that I have already begun building in myself.  As a page mover, I move imprecise titles away from articles on a regular basis.  Since becoming involved with this particular page move request, there have been more than a few times that I've come across imprecise titles that I've moved in accordance with consensus, policies and guidelines, and each time I do, I think of this page – an imprecise title that has been the source of trouble for many years and yet is still in place, completely against Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  My growing obsession, then, is with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Every edit that I've made on Wikipedia, every edit you've made, every edit that every editor on Wikipedia has ever made that has been in adherence to policies and guidelines effectively means nothing – NOTHING – until this imprecise page title, "New York", is moved away from this article.  Nothing.  My obsession is growing stronger.  How is yours doing?   Paine   u/ c  05:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't project ignorance, bias, and obsession on others. Just because you claim to have them, others do not.  As policy warns, such obsession does not go down well. It's really a bad idea for all and for the pedia to become as obsessed as you claim to be, with capital/bolded letter shouting and your earlier reference to pizza (of all things), and all. You misapprehend. Understanding New York City is in New York is both true and relatively easy. Understanding Quebec City is in Quebec is both true and relatively easy. etc. etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Projecting? More like trying to understand you. You repeatedly (obsessively?) argue that "New York City" is in "New York", which still doesn't answer the question:  How can you equate the precise article title, "Quebec", with the imprecise title, "New York"? and why do you keep avoiding that question?  This has nothing to do with what is in where – it has to do with the question, "Is 'where' precise or not?"  Well, you've gotten us all off-topic (and you've supplied some interesting ideas to say the least), so I am going to try and bring us back to "stewardship vs. ownership".   Paine   u/ c  11:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Projecting.  There is nothing hard to understand about New York City is in New York, that Quebec City is in Quebec, and that 'precise' is an informed editorial judgement call, not a holy writ in need of capital letter/bolding shouting.  I get that you express a desire for absolute iron rule, it's just that it's poor substitute for informed judgement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That NYC is in the state of New York is irrelevant for the question of whether the term "New York" is ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect, as the only substantive claim that's even forwarded is that people are hopelessly confused between New York City and New York, and that is what supposedly makes it hopelessly ambiguous - if there are some such (as is mostly based upon assumption about those poor soles' utter ignorance) given how easy the concepts are, and how substantively connected in fact, they can easily work it out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the sort of arrogance that routinely derails any rational discussions. It is undeniable that for many millions of people around the world, the term "New York" first and foremost refers to the city. Many may be completely unaware of the existence of the state and such widespread "ignorance" is not something that can be dismissed so casually. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation Needed. It has nothing to do with whatever poor motive you wish to ascribe, and certainly not arrogance. That you are personally convinced of the total widespread lack of facility in English and ignorance is less than useless.  These subjects are entirely prosaic and found in standard reference works.  If you argue that citation needed rather than ipsa dixit is arrogance, Wikipedia disagrees. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your own obstinacy and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT notwithstanding, fortunately the recent RfC rather conclusively found otherwise that the term "New York" is ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC explicitly rejected the ipsa dixit you offer. I hear you, fine.  That someone disagrees with you has nothing to do with not hearing you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ipsa dixit yourself. I see no rational possibility of interpreting the recently closed RfC as "explicitly rejecting" the claim that the term "New York" is ambiguous. Granted, that was not the specific question asked in the RfC and I may have overstated the RfC conclusion. However, the closer's conclusion states Overall, consensus indicates that New York State is not the primary topic for the title "New York", which reasonable implies there is some question as to what the primary topic of the term is or whether there is any primary topic at all -- which goes to the very heart of ambiguity regarding the term. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did you not hear what I said? It explicitly rejected the ipsa dixit you offered calling them "personal observations".  That RfC close specifically found that much more discussion is needed to decide any edit -- it is consensus on Wikipedia that future edits and past-claims are under revision, and emendation, questions for proof, sources, etc., in future discussions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying it was rejected was at least as much if not more of an overstatement that I made. The conclusion states: The latter point [that the city is much better known than the state on a global scale] is somewhat less persuasive as it appears to rely heavily on personal observation judging by the way most arguments are formulated. That is at best a nuanced rejection, though to me it reads more like assigning greater weight to one argument than the other argument (which both support the same position) in reaching the conclusion. older ≠ wiser 18:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, nuanced rejection but in Wikipedia discussions when someone gives personal observation as there support, it is Original Research and thus matter for rejection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look back at the RM, there was an entire wall of evidence based text as to why the state was not primary topic, and if there were any lines about personal opinion they were purely anecdotal and clearly backed up by citations. The oppose side raised a few good points, but none of them really stood the test of analysis against our policies and guidelines. My personal favourite was that moving the article would cause "irreparable harm" to Wikipedia. Not just any sort of harm, but irreparable harm. The encyclopedia would be broken for ever because New York no longer referred primarily to the state. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The close above did look at that supposed wall and found WP:Original Research, which is rejected, except in one area that was never disputed, that New York City, titled New York City, gets more daily page views - so we find ourselves again in the same narrow evidence, New York City gets allot of page views as New York City, and New York gets allot of page views as New York. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And you continue to re-interpret the closer's words to suit your own predilections. There is no mention whatsoever of original research, not even a fair implication that this is what the closer meant. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You said, in the close there was a "nuanced rejection" of "personal observation" - that is what Original Research is, that is why rejection arises. Besides, you must know that the statement you made about millions of people is a statement of original research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You reinterpreted the closer's (and now apparently my own) comments to suit your own POV. The closer's comments seemed pretty well explained without interpolating original research into the mix. older ≠ wiser 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First. No. I followed what the closer said, and what you said. But perhaps you don't like it because it does not suit your POV. Nonetheless, your most recent comment suggests confusion on your part about what original reaserch is, as your 'millions' statement is obvious original reaserch. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The closer said NOTHING about original research, that is your own desperate spin on it to bolster your POV. And if you are unable to tell the difference between an opinion and a original research, there is little point in continuing any discussion with you. Look through your own contributions on this and related pages to find just as much so-called original research. older ≠ wiser 20:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course they did with reference "personal observation", thus the reason it's discounted.  Personal observation is precisely a way to say original research, that is what it is, a person says this is what they think and believe and an edit should reflect that, instead of summarizing WP:Reliable Sources. Your desperate argument not to understand personal observation and why it's discounted, apparently may well be because it just does not suit your POV.  Perhaps, though, it is related to your totally confused understanding of "opinion" and of "original research". First, your saying millions of people do something is representing a fact, not an opinion.  Second, of course, opinion can be Original Research.  It's called SYNTH and similar things in policy.   But, again, you claimed an unsupported fact not an opinion.  You presented Original Research as the reason to make an edit.  I, of course, am not supporting making any edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

, didn't you ever think that maybe it's you who totally doesn't get what is commonly understood by "original research"at Wikipedia, and that's the reason why the other editors don't agree to your position on that point?

Original Research, in the sense that is covered and restricted by WP:OR, is something that applies EXCLUSIVELY to article content, never to discussion among editors in talk pages. The assertion that "the city is better known worldwide than the state" is never made within the article, so it can't be SYNTH. You can say that you regard those opinions as weak for not being backed up by facts; but that doesn't make them forbidden not even discouraged by policy, which is what you imply when you call them OR, and thus they remain as perfectly legitimate arguments. We usually call those opinions "editorial discretion", and are supported by WP:CONS. It definitely should not be "discounted" on OR ground when closing discussions (and fortunately the closer didn't discount it; rather its proper weight was assesed as part of the close). Diego (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if I agreed with your premise of what discounting means or with the strictures on OR, it appears we can agree it's been found to be a weak case unsupported by RS, leaving us again with just the page views. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We can agree that, being a WP:Sky is blue situation, editors didn't bother to link to the evidence (although I remember someone explicitly describing the kind of reliable sources supporting it, like travel advertising and air companies). Now that a closer has deemed this not enough to support the argument, such mistake won't be made in the next discussion. Diego (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We cannot agree on that but we can agree that a new approach would certainly be needed to correct course. At least Wikipedia will be able to actually test your WP:Sky is not blue claims in a reasoned discussion then and not because movers want to edit into Wikipedia their personal predilections. As the largest travel reference work publisher in the English language, Fodor's, has New York at New York, and New York City at New York City that can certainly elevate the discussion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean the commercial page that feels they need to start its advertising of the state with "Say the words "New York" and icons like Times Square and the Museum of Modern Art may be the first things that pop to mind but..."? Heck yes, let's use it! Diego (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have we not been over this, according to policy, article titles are not the first thing that pop in your head. And indeed, the travel publisher explicitly says Times Square is in New York and MOMA is in New York, so that's excellent information to have. That does not mean we change Times Square's title to New York, or MOMA's to New York, nor New York's to Times Square or New York's to MOMA. Fodor's called that article New York and it is the state, which naturally includes Times Square and MOMA. You are free to argue that people think of all kinds of things when they think of New York, based on a half sentence but as is clear according to the source they all fall under the topic of New York. Encyclopedic topics cover things encyclopedically. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Arby break
In an effort to get back on track, I'd like to study the subject more closely, that is, how to distinguish article ownership from stewardship. After reading the above back 'n forth, something emerges that might possibly be misconstrued: Obsessive behavior. Could that be a measure of ownership? My first instinct would be to say no, stewards of articles can probably become quite obsessed with some of the items on their watchlist. The above conversation has led me to describe two forms of obsessive behavior on the part of the stewards of this title and article about the great state of New York. Only an obsessed article owner or steward would not be able to see those two above as what they really are. tbc  Paine   u/ c  12:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) the equating of precise titles such as "Kuwait" and "Quebec" with the obviously imprecise title, "New York", and
 * 2) the evident and complete disregard for the fact that a "page move" to "New York (state)" is not a "page rename" at all.  Only obsessiveness would not recognize that the "state" qualifier is not a part of the page title, it's just a qualifier!  The article would continue to be titled "New York" and only "New York".  The only difference is that the "state" disambiguator in parentheses would make the title of this article precise.  It would no longer be imprecise and would adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  The actual article title would be unchanged – it would be exactly the same old "New York", with the sole addition of the gift of precision.
 * As you are the one who has claimed that you have an obsession and you are deep in WP:not a forum territory, here, it's best if you move your silly claims about others elsewhere. Article owners, own articles they intensively work on, not ones they render an editorial judgement with respect to. And when that judgement is backed up by RS, it can only be ludicrous, and far from policy compliant, to claim they own an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This section title has put me in the mood for a roast beef sandwich. bd2412  T 16:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well put,, lucky you! I'll go for pizza here far far away from New York state, city or metro… — JFG talk 16:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. I don't yet have an obsession with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because even though those policies and guidelines have been built over years of community consensus, even though as editors we all know that there must be darn good reason to circumvent policies and guidelines, I feel that such an obsession would only be blocked sooner or later by good ol' IAR!  So no, I don't see any good in developing such an obsession any more than I see any good in the occasional obsessions of article stewards.  Besides, obsession leads to delusion, which brings to mind your warm conversation with older ≠ wiser above.  As you, Alanscottwalker, are decidedly one of the better editors on Wikipedia, you remind me of once when I asked a cop what it was about his job that he disliked the most?  His answer... "I mostly dislike it when I have to arrest good people who've done bad things."  When you've realized that you and 21 other good editors have done a bad thing here, only then will you release yourself from your semantic prison and find that the truth really will set you free!   Paine   u/ c  05:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well, thanks for the homespunny, um, wisdom. But in the list of bad things, calling the name of a state will never be one of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pleasure! And that is precisely what you have failed to comprehend – that any title, whether it is the name of a state or the name of anything else, when ambiguous and not renamed or disambiguated, makes our encyclopedia more confusing to our readers and less encyclopedic (in addition to being in direct conflict with Wikipedia guidelines and policies).  The longer this ambiguous, imprecise title remains at the top of this article about the great state, the more it is a slap-in-the-face of anyone who has ever moved an ambiguous title away from an article.  Have you ever done that, Alanscottwalker?  Have you ever moved an imprecise title away from an article and renamed the article with a precise title?  Then consider yourself slapped in the face along with the rest of us!   Paine   u/ c  10:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, need some ice for that? Come now, no one is physically or metaphorically hitting you, surely.  That all seems rather dramatic: calling something by its common, encyclopedic name happens all the time on Wikipedia, no need to stress about it. As for precise, covering all the people and all the places of New York, etc. at New York is precisely, precise enough.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Many think you are wrong, and only a few think you're correct, as noted by the RfC that finds that this article is not the primary topic of the title "New York". And it's interesting that you would say something like, "...covering all the people and all the places of New York, etc. at New York is precisely, precise enough."  That just doesn't sound like something you would say.  It's certainly not something you would say about all the other many, many titles that are imprecise and that you and I and others have moved away from Wikipedia articles.  I thought you liked Wikipedia!  (I don't understand why you would want this encyclopedia to appear inaccurate and imprecise in just this one case?)   Paine   u/ c  23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that people wait until at least March 25 to discuss all of this. Castncoot (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you do, Cassie. I intend to keep discussing it until you and others see the good in moving this imprecise page title away from this wonderful article about the great state of New York!  And I might ask you the same question:  Why would you want this encyclopedia to seem inaccurate and imprecise in just this one case?   Paine   u/ c  00:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So you admit you are just going to bludgeon the discussion until you get your way? Not cool. Look, I agree that this article should move, but frankly I think the attitude is terrible, and detrimental to a collegial discussion. I think it's time for all of us to walk away and have a cool off period. Six months seems reasonable. oknazevad (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do admit that I intend to discuss this until those who don't recognize the bare "New York" title to be imprecise so as to confuse our readers understand the good and the necessity to stick to the guidelines and policies that lead us to do the right thing. Truly sorry if you actually consider that to be "bludgeoning"; however, I cannot understand how you could think so.  I have been privileged to be involved with some of the most excellent editors on Wikipedia in this discussion, editors who can run rings around me when it comes to Wikipedia.  So it's a true enigma to me why some of those editors seem unable or unwilling to sense the huge wrong we do by continuing to allow this situation to exist.  So what I should have said is that I will continue to keep discussing it until move opposers either see the good in moving this imprecise page title away from this wonderful article about the great state of New York or I am made to understand the guidelineless, policyless and logicless rationales of the page move opposers!  To me, that's more of a "self-bludgeoning" when you consider that I leave myself open not only to those editors who opposed the rename, but to those like you who don't.  The plain fact of the matter is that the page move discussion has not been officially closed by the three-member panel that we asked to do the closing.  Only one of those three has given their closing statement, so we still await closing statements from two other panel members.  Until that happens, there is no reason in the world not to continue to discuss in a civil and attackless manner this page move request until complete understanding prevails.   Paine   u/ c  08:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to regard the RM as having been closed by User:Newyorkbrad on 22 September as no consensus either for or against the proposed move. I can see how some would regard this close as unsatisfactory, but we need to move on. Andrewa (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In a manner of speaking, this actually is me "moving on" – yes, the close non-close is decidedly not satisfactory (even a "-tree" dipthong at the end doesn't help that one ). In the first place, with all due respect and sincere admiration for NYbrad, that editor, with a glaring "NY" in their username, was a poor choice for the closing panel in the first place.  NYbrad seems to find it impossible to be objective, impartial and credible, although they do seem to try to be as helpful as possible under the circumstances.  I would have no problem with this in a "normal" situation, since we all accepted NYbrad from the beginning in hopes that they would be objective.  In this particular situation, NYbrad's opinion could reasonably be seen as a !supervote without the opinions of the other two panel members.  So it is, to me, unreasonable to expect anything less than a proper close in order to properly fulfill the "NFC".  This whole thing is about an ambiguous page title, so don't you find it ironic that the page-move close is as ambiguous as the page title we want to move? (perhaps even moreso)   Paine   u/ c  13:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's now two of the panel of three that someone has wanted disqualified since discussion closed and initial comments were delivered. We simply can't do that. There was rough consensus that this panel should be accepted. Further down the track there may be a time for questions about the verdicts, and as to why there has been no acknowledgement of the close by two of the panel, which to me is a far bigger issue. Any further panels should be preceded by a discussion as to exactly what is expected of the panel, and what went right and wrong this time could be part of that. But for any of the panel to comment further on the latest RM will now just complicate and delay things IMO. They have had their chance. The next thing is to build consensus and eventually get a better verdict if possible, with consensus one way or another. This may see the verdicts supported. I cannot imagine how, but I'm involved, to say the least. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 25 March is the date on which my self-imposed moratorium on raising a new RM expires, so I'm guessing that's why user:Castncoot has chosen it. But we still have quite a lot of work to do before that if it's not to go the same sorry way, which is why I originally proposed a six-month moratorium on related discussions to be followed by another six months of no RMs (but that proposal got no takers). Progress is being made, see User talk:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York and associated pages, but not as smoothly as I would like, see below. Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The requested move was indeed closed by me last month as no consensus, after several editors asked me to post a closing. The belated allegation above that I "find it impossible to be objective, impartial and credible" is offensive. To begin with, the reason I served on the closing panel for the RM is that I was specifically invited to do so. I asked at the time if it was an issue that I am myself a New Yorker, and was assured that it wasn't. In any event, I live and work both in New York State and in New York City (and in New York County, too, for that matter), so I don't understand what my bias might supposedly have been.

The idea that I cast a "supervote" by closing as no-consensus is nonsense also; the numerical result of the poll was 23-to-22, a tally that creates some presumption that consensus is lacking; and while some of the opposers' rationales were poor, other opposers did make valid points. These included some users' preference for leaving article names in status quo absent a strong need to move (I know there are other editors who strongly believe that's not a good argument, but I didn't, and don't, see a basis for disregarding it), and others' view that a disambiguation page is not a good target for a high-profile argument (again, a controversial viewpoint for some, but that's not a basis for the closing admin to disregard it either). I have a wiki-reputation for taking the slings-and-arrows that accompany adminship in stride, but I find the attack on my integrity and sincerity to be highly offensive.

The recent discussion on this page has seen a recrudescence of the flamboyant and frankly absurd, over-the-top rhetoric that has marred several prior phases of this discussion. If any either seriously thinks that "Every edit that I've made on Wikipedia, every edit you've made, every edit that every editor on Wikipedia has ever made that has been in adherence to policies and guidelines effectively means nothing – NOTHING – until this imprecise page title, "New York", is moved away from this article. Nothing.", and that the no-consensus closing "is a slap-in-the-face of anyone who has ever moved an ambiguous title away from an article," then that editor has suffered a very serious loss of perspective and needs to disengage.

This entire episode reflects our community's pattern of focusing entirely disproportionate amounts of the time and effort of our editors, which is Wikipedia's most important resources, on minor matters of nomenclature. It is the sort of thing that brings the project into mockery, and it should not go on any longer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with nearly all of this, which somehow crossed my post above... in that I was looking at a previous diff rather than the current page when I posted it, that's why we didn't get an edit conflict. Thank you for the time and trouble you have put into it.


 * But one of your fellow panelists described the current situation as a glaring and damaging error... and they were not the one who !voted for consensus to move. It needs a better resolution... at the appropriate time. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you quoted me above, I can assume that you already know precisely what I think is the sort of thing that brings the project into mockery and should not go on any longer. So there is no need to repeat it.  Great word, "recrudescence"!  And it's easy to tell what it means in the context you use, even if one has no idea what is its definition.  Please don't take too much offense at my words, since I did try to soften the blow a bit.  I and all others accepted you as a member of a three-person closing panel.  A panel with three members seemed like a good idea at the time, so what do you suppose is wrong with it now?  How well would your 33.3% No-consensus decision have been accepted if you had originally been the only uninvolved closer?  That's a significant point here.  Yes, you were asked and accepted, but that acceptance was not just based upon your heavily trusted past experience here.  Your acceptance as a member of the panel was also based upon your critical partnership with two other members, who would hopefully work with you in unison to come to a joint decision in regard to this requested move, so I ask you again to please rethink and to withdraw your single close decision so that the rest of us can come to consensus in regard to precisely how to move forward with this requested move.  As long as you don't do this, as long as your closing decision is out there waiting for two other closing rationales from two other panel members to yield a final and unquestioned close decision, we pretty much have here what can only be described as a stalemate.  Please, Newyorkbrad, please, I call upon you to exercise your formidable influence over all the editors who are involved in this ongoing saga and withdraw your singleton close.  That would lift the cloud and help us more clearly see our way forward.  Thank you for any consideration you may give in this matter.   Paine   u/ c  20:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we need to assume that the other two panelists have by their silence accepted the verdict. I also find this most unsatisfactory, as in their most recent comments both seemed to think that a move was the right thing. But one did also find no consensus. We must move on. Andrewa (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad displayed impeccable integrity and skill in handling a Herculean and entirely unenviable task phenomenally. I doubt that any of the armchair critics here could have done nearly as well as he did with such an extraordinarily tricky and difficult scenario. Agree that it's time to move on, regardless of one's viewpoint. Castncoot (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is far too early to make that call, and probably not good for involved editors such as ourselves to try to make it anyway.
 * Agree that we should thank User:Newyorkbrad (and I would add also User:Niceguyedc and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) for their efforts, and accept that they have done the best they could. There is much in the close that is puzzling, and questions that may never be answered. The panel have now had more than ample chance to answer them. We move on. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Cassie, and I want to make it clear that I have no problem with Newyorkbrad at all, which is why I was one of many who approved of that editor's seat on the closing panel. My problem is only with the close of this requested move and the way it's been done.  Unlike some others, I do not accept the assumption that the other two panel members tacitly agree with the no-consensus close.  I see this as an unorthodox and insufficient close thus far.  The only thing that changes this is the withdrawal of NYBrad's close.  That way we can ask another uninvolved admin, or invite three others to sit on a new panel, to properly close this discussion.  If NYBrad decides not to withdraw their close, then we must fall back to this being an unsuccessful close and closure.  I certainly don't look forward to that, but for me, this is "moving on".   Paine   u/ c  06:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree that if Newyorkbrad were to withdraw their close then that might open a new possibility. But I said might, as it would be unprecedented as far as I can see, and has a couple of other more serious drawbacks. There is a question in my mind as to whether a new closer (panel or otherwise) would take the subsequent RfC into account, they might I suppose take it as clarifying the merits of some of the arguments and !votes that they were assessing. Taking up the subsequent suggestion that New York become a primary redirect would be even more doubtful, I can't see how they could accommodate that at all, and I think it is at least as important as the RfC. I watch with interest. Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To briefly review the bidding here, three editors were asked to close the RM discussion. I was asked to be one of them, made sure there were no objections to my doing so, and agreed. When it was time for the closing, I reviewed all the RM comments and arguments, and concluded there was no consensus either for or against a move, and explained why. In response to subsequent questions, I amplified my thinking, albeit perhaps not to some people's satisfaction. The second closer, Niceguyedc, disagreed with me and, based on his evaluation of the strength of the arguments, thought there was a consensus to move. The third closer, Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, though he personally thought the move-supporters have the better of the arguments, ultimately concluded that there was no consensus.
 * With two of three closers finding no consensus, it was apparent to me that the overall result was "no consensus" also. That said, I said I would be glad to participate in further deliberations if the other closers thought it would be helpful. However, Niceguyedc seemed be on a wikibreak (which is continuing; his last edit was almost three months ago). Fut.Perf. remains an active editor and administrator; he's been pinged to these discussions several times, but seems not to have anything further to add.
 * At that point, I hadn't planned to say anything else, but in late September, a month or so after the original close process, I was repeatedly pinged to the RM closure page and I was implored to post some sort of a closing notice to put an end to any uncertainty over the result. I complied with the result and formally closed the RM as no consensus.
 * Now I am being told by another editor, a month later, that I should not have closed the RM after all and I am being asked to withdraw the closure so that the closing process can start all over again. After the time and effort I have expended on this entire situation, I have no reason to change my opinion, and I certainly have no desire to compound the morass of procedural nonsense that is being conjured up over what remains a minor matter. The closure of "no consensus either for or against a move", accordingly, stands. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree completely. The previous discussion is properly closed. I would suggest that editors attend to other things for at least a few months before returning to the question. bd2412  T 20:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it really wasn't properly closed. I'm not saying there's anything we can do about it, and I agree that we need to move on and prepare for the next RM in due course, but one thing is certain in my mind, the close was not proper. A panel closure requires a panel decision, not three separate decisions followed by two months (or however long it is now) of further conversation. I commend for staying on the scene and indulging this endless spiel, and I certainly attach no blame in their direction, they reached a fair decision and stuck to it. But equally a closure by just one of the panel, who clearly had a different opinion than the other two, is not a closure. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not properly closed? For it to have been proper, all three closers should have individually signed of on the "no consensus" statement?  I think we can all read that it was properly closed as no consensus.
 * My reading of it all was that some of the questions asked and debated, and which continued to be debated, were overly specific tending hypothetical, and that the first question "Is there a problem with the status quo" has not been agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe, one of the closers found there is harm and consensus to move, another found the current situation a glaring and damaging error, agreed? (It's a matter of fact and I can provide the diffs if you like.) Andrewa (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no. The first one found he agreed with the movants there was harm, the problem for his statement as a matter of fact was that 50% of the editors did not agree. The second stated it was his personal opinion it was error, which is why as closer he could not act on his personal opinion because 50% of editors did not agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You say "no", but you seem to agree with the claims I made. As to why the other two closers rejected the minority finding of consensus, and found themselves unable to fix the harm that two of the panel observed (the third did not say either way), yes, that's exactly what I think they said too. Andrewa (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then its a matter of reading, especially the second, when the third closer says in effect, 'the statements against are within reason, even if I do not agree with them about error', they are not making a finding about anything other than the opposition was within reason, including about error. In the words of the closer, its a supervote, he must not make. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If and when we do this again, I would prefer it if the panel discuss the matter *off-wiki* rather than giving individual opinions on the Wiki pages. Then they present a united decision, and there is no need to worry about the order of the votes or who is supervoting. If I were a panelist, I would make my decision, then I would listen and discuss my opinion with the other panelists, also listening to their reasoning. Then, after all that, if the other two agreed on something that I disagreed with, I would sign off on the group decision anyway. But all that would happen off Wiki, as it did for Hillary Clinton. I think this is the best way for a panel to operate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From my years on the ArbCom, I can 100% promise you that if a panel of closers discusses their decision off-wiki, they will absolutely be accused of evading scrutiny and transparency and the close will be challenged on that basis. (Of course, in the ArbCom context, where editors as people are often involved, there are far greater counterarguments for confidentiality than in an article-title dispute.) Conversely, if they discuss the situation on-wiki, and if the issue is a controversial one, any points of disagreement between the panelists are subject to being picked to death if someone doesn't like the closing badly enough. There is no method of deliberation that will avoid the possibility of controversy, whether warranted or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Another break
The question of just what constitutes a supervote has always perplexed me, does the concept appear except in this often-quoted essay? I'm careful to avoid any suggestion of them, but I sometimes wonder why.

Agree about the off-wiki discussion. But that may have happened for all we know. The silence is deafening. Based on my experience here, I'm not convinced that a panel closing is a good idea at all.

User:Alanscottwalker, thanks for the contributions. You seem to understand the panel's thoughts, and I most certainly do not so far. But from what you have said, it appears that two of them did a head count first and then referred to the arguments as a sort of tie-breaker, is that your understanding too?

That's the opposite of what I have done in closing RMs. I think as a closer you should look at the arguments first, and then do a head count only if absolutely necessary. That may explain why I've reached such a different conclusion to both you and the panel, on many matters. Andrewa (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I always look at both. If the headcount is unanimous one way or the other, or strongly in one direction or the other, I verify what they're saying, and close it off if what they say is reasonable (and if the one or two lone votes in the other direction don't ring any alarm bells). If I don't think the head count consensus reasonable, I cast a !vote in the other direction, explaining why. Where the headcount is close, I then examine the arguments on both sides and see if either argument has a lot more merit. If so, I close that way; note that this is not a supervote, as I'm assessing the arguments made during the discussion, not any other personal arguments I may choose to make. I think this last scenario is the way Future Perfect should have called it - they saw a close headcount, but were more persuaded by the move arguments, so that's a close as move in my book. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given what Future Perfect said and reasoned, you would be supervoting and disregarding your duty as a closer in favor of your personal desire. That would be most unreasonable of you, as closer, given that move review had just returned this move because no consensus was present. In short, you would not be closing but disruptively supervoting.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The essay on supervoting has never gained consensus, see below, so disregarding it would not be disruptive (but relying on it might be). Or are you replying to me (see below)? If so it does not seem to relate at all to what I said. Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I was not responding to you. More to the point, this has gotten much too meta to be useful and it is very misplaced on this page.  The 'supervote' concept has been regularly used by Wikipedia to judge consensus closes, so yes it's part of the warp and woof of consensus on Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree about supervotes, that's why I'm careful to avoid them as I said above (perhaps you missed that). But it's also important to bear in mind that the whole supervote concept has failed to gain any sort of consensus, while the various policies and the closing instructions based on them have.
 * And I don't think any of your hypothetical examples of supposed supervotes above are against policy or guidelines, which just underlines how dangerous the concept can be!
 * But I am obviously finding this discussion useful, and thank you for your input. Neither of us has changed much (I have re off-wiki). But I think I understand better. Still not as much as I would like. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Andrewa, we have already discussed this, as closer, you cannot replace your judgement for editors' judgement, your job is to ascertain and enact their judgement. Can it be hard, sure, but that is your duty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree... you seem to be replying to me here, but the stringing is a bit strange. But again, this does not seem to relate at all to what I said. Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also do not get this needs to off-wiki thing. The closers all transparently said their piece, and two had nothing more to add to the discussion.  One spoke more, as is his wonderful and well known practice, but then too, people kept asking him to be so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On reflection I've changed my view on off-wiki discussions. They could be counterproductive, particularly in cases that lead to a no consensus outcome. The goal is consensus, and the details of the panel's reasoning should be a very valuable part of this. The only time it would help is when there is already significant off-wiki pressure, which should be an arbcom matter, and there are already adequate off-wiki channels for raising that. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I first look purely at the arguments presented. If I am able to close it at that stage, I do so, and a head count does not enter into it. In theory, one valid !vote could out!vote many that give no valid reason or none at all, and I can't see how the closing instructions can be interpreted in any other way. But that is rare, and if they give no reason at all and it seems that it could affect the close I relist and ping those users to ask for a better rationale.
 * If not, then I look at the head count. If it's very lopsided, then I revisit the arguments very carefully, and try to understand the majority view. Sometimes this overturns my initial assessment. But if the arguments of the minority are clearly based on policy and logically argued, and the majority clearly are not, then I will close in favour of the minority (particularly if there has already been at least one relisting). And again I can't see how the closing instructions can be otherwise interpreted.
 * If still in doubt, then and only then will I see whether I can cast a !vote myself either way, to help the eventual closer. In my opinion, one of the problems with the panel discussion was that the members of the panel did not have this option.
 * But avoiding a supervote is not easy. The concept is not clear, and may even be contrary to policy, which is probably one reason that it has never gained consensus support. I can see what the author was trying to say, but there are many situations in which I don't find it helpful at all, as it stands. Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was not responding to you above, but here I will. It is unsupportable, given Wikipedia policy and human reason, that anyone could really regard almost all editorial issues (like a naming issue that has no BLP concerns) as having only one outcome - they are not cut and dried, they are shades of gray, trade-off's, constructions from evidence, or lack there-of, and application.  The social contract, here, depends on taking the judgement of all editors seriously and not saying, as closer, you get to decide.  The hubris of a closer who would say, sure you all see an issue but I know better, you all are idiots, is recipe for very poor outcomes.  The truth is that almost all edits reach consensus easily but a few do not, and a closer is not there to force it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying who you were replying to... I've had a go too. Your stringing was not clear IMO.
 * Agree with all of this... except it seems to be getting a bit personal. I have never taken the attitude that other users are all idiots, and don't see how my remarks above could be seen as doing so.
 * But I'm still of the opinion that one side is clearly mistaken, and their arguments are falling one by one. There was a claim of irreparable harm. That was dismissed as hyperbole. There was a claim that NYS was the primary topic. That failed at an RfC. There is now still a claim that there is no harm in the current situation, a sort of laissez faire argument. But that was dismissed by the panel, two against and one abstaining, and I really don't think we need another RfC. Surely?
 * And I admit I do not understand the close. Always have. I'm not calling anyone an idiot. I'm trying to understand. That's what building consensus is about.
 * Not idiots. But perhaps mistaken. I do it too. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are "of the opinion." And no one can disagree with your opinion is what you are saying. But you are somehow confused that two closers were of the opinion that there is no consensus.  No consensus is not a hard concept to understand.  As for the rest, let's just disagree and move on for now. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I must clarify this. You say that I am somehow confused that two closers were of the opinion that there is no consensus. Where did I say anything like that? I think you may be referring to my saying that was dismissed by the panel, two against and one abstaining. This was referring specifically to the claim that there is no harm in the current situation. One of those who found harm, and the one who did not say either way, both found no consensus. Of that there is no manner of doubt, No probable, possible shadow of doubt, No possible doubt whatever.. Andrewa (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree that No consensus is not a hard concept to understand, in fact I'm surprised to see you say that. It may sound simple. It's not! Perhaps the belief that it is or should be simple is part of the problem... but from your comments elsewhere, you seem to understand the subtleties involved.
 * But there is no doubt that two found no consensus. The puzzle is how they arrived at this conclusion. It seems likely that they were both wrong about there being no consensus on primary topic. Did this perhaps mislead them? We may never know. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Alanscottwalker, It's normally seen as bad form to change a post after it's received replies unless trivial (spelling mistakes for example), but I'm curious about this one. It seems harmless, and correcting the spelling mistake is fine, but issues -> edits? What is the intended difference in the meaning? Andrewa (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to refer to edits, so that is what I corrected it to, it is more precise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is of course not the place to discuss your behaviour, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this string, see Talk page guidelines which reads in part if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Note that this is an official behavioural guideline. Andrewa (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. None of that applies to that edit. It's quite strange that you would make a deal of it, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just trying to help. I thought you might be unaware of the guideline, and was mainly concerned that by ignoring it you might mislead others. They can read it and judge for themselves. Agree this does not need to go further. 11:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This thread raises interesting issues about the meaning of consensus and best practices in closing discussions, although I don't perceive most of those issues as relevant to the specific closure under discussion here. There are inherent tensions in the various guidelines and expectations involved. Take these two statements about consensus, which I think most although not all experienced editors would agree with:
 * (1) If 5 editors support "A" and 10 support "B", but the arguments for "A" are soundly based in reason and policy and the arguments for "B" are unabashedly rooted in foolishness, then it is within an administrator's discretion to close as "A".
 * (2) An administrator should not in closing a discussion substitute his or her personal opinion rather than opine on the result of the discussion.

Is it not apparent that these two sentences pull in opposite directions? After all, how is an administrator to decide that the 5 have better arguments than the 10, except by bringing his or her own personal opinion into the mix? But the usual response to this is to say, the administrator should not impose his or her opinion on the underlying dispute, but should be guided by his or her opinion about the policies and guidelines relevant to the dispute&mdash;but from years of experience I can attest that in any complex judgment with a range of views, that is not a line easily drawn.

As someone else said, this is all a bit too "meta" for this page. Maybe we'll take this another place another time. Or maybe there should be more article-writing and less meta-gazing (he said, ignoring the beam in his own eye...). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * All very well put. Andrewa (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am untroubled there, editing itself is a series of choices and judgments, sometimes close. Meta-cogitate on 'there is more than is dreampt of in your philosophy' to understand why 'unabashed foolishness' would be a rather high bar, especially if you are going to respect people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

And yet another to avoid bad stringing

 * Thank you, Newyorkbrad, not only for your time and effort expended on this situation, but also for several other things. There is a lot of gratitude here for the herculean task you have tackled and for the manner in which you have done so.  You deserve thanks for the stamina you've shown here, and I personally thank you for your decisiveness, even though had you been less so and had withdrawn or changed your decision then it would have been better all around IMHO.  It is our good fortune that you have pinpointed the flaw in your argument with the second half of what you wrote above.  This "minor matter" is so minor that it is brought up continually.  It is so minor that editors took a perfectly good June close to MRV, which brought us here and succeeded in letting this imprecise, ambiguous, non-primary-topic page title to remain, overturning that June decision.  It is indeed so minor so as to, at least in your mind, not require a proper close that would involve the two other fine editors who agreed to work with you and derive a joint decision to... waitasec... no, I won't take it any farther here, because I am assured that there is no way to make you see just how heavily this situation weighs for many editors here.  And for you to just sluff it off as if it were pretty much a meaningless, "minor matter" is, to say the least, disappointing.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Had you made a singleton close decision to move this page, I don't think it's much of a crystal ballish stretch to say that the opposers would have been up in arms over this "minor matter" and straight to MRV we would have gone.  But I guess that sort of thing must not be obvious to some of us, correct?  Later.   Paine   u/ c  01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Newyorkbrad, not only for your time and effort expended on this situation, but also for several other things. There is a lot of gratitude here for the herculean task you have tackled and for the manner in which you have done so.  You deserve thanks for the stamina you've shown here, and I personally thank you for your decisiveness, even though had you been less so and had withdrawn or changed your decision then it would have been better all around IMHO.  It is our good fortune that you have pinpointed the flaw in your argument with the second half of what you wrote above.  This "minor matter" is so minor that it is brought up continually.  It is so minor that editors took a perfectly good June close to MRV, which brought us here and succeeded in letting this imprecise, ambiguous, non-primary-topic page title to remain, overturning that June decision.  It is indeed so minor so as to, at least in your mind, not require a proper close that would involve the two other fine editors who agreed to work with you and derive a joint decision to... waitasec... no, I won't take it any farther here, because I am assured that there is no way to make you see just how heavily this situation weighs for many editors here.  And for you to just sluff it off as if it were pretty much a meaningless, "minor matter" is, to say the least, disappointing.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Had you made a singleton close decision to move this page, I don't think it's much of a crystal ballish stretch to say that the opposers would have been up in arms over this "minor matter" and straight to MRV we would have gone.  But I guess that sort of thing must not be obvious to some of us, correct?  Later.   Paine   u/ c  01:21, 28 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. This is again being discussed above.

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 a reason is IMO more damaging than the article naming issue itself. It would set an appalling precedent.

The bottom line is, I am still of the view that a move would improve Wikipedia for readers, and even that there is a rough consensus that both policy and practical considerations support this view. There are some procedural problems, certainly, but we are making progress and with patience I think these can be overcome. Andrewa (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A little more logic
1) There is no chance of reopening the RM of July 2016 unless there is a change in Newyorkbrad's position

2) There is no chance of Newyorkbrad changing their position

Before I go on, is there any disagreement with either of those premises? Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost... the only circumstance that would change this is if the other two panelists come back on board and agree to a group decision, one way or the other. That is also unlikely though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour
Several posts above involve personal attack. The no personal attacks policy is not just about civility, in fact that's a separate policy (and may also have been transgressed). WP:NPA is about discussing the contribution not the contributor. In particular article talk pages such as this one are for discussing improvements to the article.

It is generally a breach of policy to even discuss behaviour on an article talk page such as this one. Behavioural issues should be discussed on user talk pages and escalated in need.

I raise it here because several different editors have discussed each others' behaviour above, and I think it's important to point out here the policy for the benefit of those reading this. They could otherwise be badly led astray, thinking it is acceptable.

It's not. There has been a lot of it in the wider discussion about what should be at this base name New York, and it must stop. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Clearing this page
I hereby propose archiving this thread which has imho outlived its purpose. Editors are just chatting by now. If some contributors have any new constructive proposals towards improvement of the article, let them open a fresh new section. Barring solid objections in the next 24 hours, I will push it to the archives. — JFG talk 09:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Good call. Any threads of continuing interest can be taken to more appropriate forums.


 * I would however point out that the Move Review notice should remain on this page until the MR is closed. Andrewa (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. — JFG talk 14:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)