Talk:New York (state)/July 2016 move request focus

This page focuses on the main requested move discussion of July 2016, and its main reason for existence is to help the closing administrator make a close decision. Please consider this page closed to discussion.  Paine  u/ c  12:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Both policy and practicality support a move. According to article naming policy and guidelines, the NYS article should not be at the base name. The practical consequence of having it there is confusion both for editors and, because of the resulting mislinkings, for readers. There is also a needless overhead of correcting these mislinkings. See my detailed arguments above. Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) All measures that we usually use to determine WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicate that "New York City" is the primary topic or there is no primary topic. The vague feelings of editors that NYS should be the primary topic despite all evidence to the contrary contradicts our naming conventions and I certainly hope the close considers strength of arguments here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If they just counted the votes, we'd have a problem, and set an interesting precedent where in practice the Wikiproject owns these pages. But I'm sure they won't do that. IMO our one problem under Requested moves/Closing instructions is the principle of preserving long-standing names, but that is only relevant if it's assessed that there is no consensus either way as to whether to move, and even then I've argued above that it should not apply in this case. We'll just have to see how it goes. Andrewa (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree. WP has a clear convention that when there are several referents with comparable claims, a disambiguation page is in order. However, if the status quo is maintained, it will also serve adequately...this is not a huge issue. Clean Copy (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) There is a fundamental ambiguity here that is not well-served by the status quo. By most measures, the city is what is most commonly meant by an unmodified "New York". Arguments that the state is some sort of related super-entity over the city and thus readers getting to that are "sort of" getting "close" to what they want don't wash—at ~185,000 bytes (with multiple images and template transclusions) readers ARE significantly inconvenienced (at the very least) to arrive at the state article instead of the city article—especially if working on a mobile device or a slow connection. The disambiguation page comes in at ~5,000 bytes with minimal impact on loading regardless of platform or connection. Also, some have claimed the New York is the official name of the state—I suggest taking a close look at the "Official Website of New York State" where the state is generally referenced as "New York State" on first mention or as NYS in short hand. It is arrogance in the extreme to make faulty assumptions about what readers expect to see at "New York" and then inflict a rather large article on them. The number of links that need to be fixed is irrelevant as they will more readily be fixed by having a disambiguation page at the base rather than simply pretending that it doesn't really matter. older ≠ wiser 03:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) There is compelling evidence that the status quo is not serving us well: the 50% of incoming links that were wrongly targeted, and which will likely continue to appear in the future if the situation remains the same. The disambiguation guideline is crystal clear in how this case should be resolved: "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)". Diego (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) The evidence presented above, in favour of moving away from the state at the base name, is well written and compelling. Nobody, even those arguing against the move, really thinks that New York state satisfies the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria: the state is *not* the most likely page sought (as page views during the period when it was moved show), it is *not* the primary topic by primary usage, particularly if usage around the world is taken into account, and the state does *not* enjoy greater long term significance than the city after which it was named. Other than the anecdotal and unsupported assertion that NYS > NYC, and the doomsday scenario that Wikipedia will be "irreparably harmed" by having a dab page here, the evidence against the move largely argues we should apply WP:IAR or WP:COMMONSENSE in maintaining the status quo. We really can't apply those though - IAR is fine and good for covering cases where everyone agrees that the rules are getting in the way; yet a large number of editors (and I'm one of them) feel the current situation is not right, and that PTOPIC is not a rule we should ignore here. Similarly, those editors feel that the common sense approach, and the one that will WP:ASTONISH the fewest readers is to have a dab page. Finally, I don't know how this MR is going to be closed, but I would urge the closer or panel of closers to remember the central point of WP:CONSENSUS - Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The current status quo does not respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so even if "oppose" !votes outnumber "support" !votes here, a much stronger argument is needed by those in opposition, if they wish to retain the status quo. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This frequent meme of "only one side knows policy!" needs a response, especially with the "instruction to closers" included in this vote. Supporters of the move haven't really engaged with the arguments based around WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL, which go a long way toward understanding why the current set up makes sense. While the city may have greater significance and usage than the state per PTOPIC, the issue is moot unless it can be demonstrated that the most common method of referring to the city is an unadorned "New York" (per WP:COMMONNAME). The existence of over 125,000 backlinks to "New York City" suggests that it's quite WP:NATURAL for editors (and, presumably, readers) to use this term when seeking the city - I doubt these all started out as "New York" and were later corrected. Meanwhile, assuming half of the 120,000 links to New York are intended for the city (discussion here), that indicates that it is twice as likely for editors/readers to naturally append "City" for this topic. Evidence pointing to the state's most natural name being a plain "New York" includes the long-standing implementation of WP:USPLACE, for which ", New York" has been added to the titles for all locality articles within the state for disambiguation, and still no-one has offered why this aspect is not confusing. Antepenultimate (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That particular aspect is not confusing because locality articles usually provide the context of showing the [Name, Region] pattern; it is clear there that "New York" refers to a region where the locality is placed, thanks to the naming convention. That context doesn't exist for [Article title], which is the case being discussed here per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
 * it's quite WP:NATURAL for editors (and, presumably, readers) That's quite an untenable logic leap. I find it easier to believe that editors writing about topics in the US will have on average a closer relation to the United States than people wanting to read about the city of New York, worldwide.
 * One more time, as a foreigner I can tell you that "New York" is orders of magnitude more natural for me than "New York City", since my cultural knowledge comes primarily from works such as New York, New York (On the Town), New York, New York (1977 film) and its main theme, 2 Days in New York, and travel agencies selling tickets to New York (not New York City) and New York Airport. I'm not aware of any such influential works which are dedicated to New York referring to the state.
 * I see that a significant portion of editors opposing the move are registered as living in the US, maybe our gut reactions for this topic are aligned to the place we come from? Diego (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's highly likely, yes. In countries other than the US, New York overwhelmingly means the city. I would think that many people who know the city haven't even heard of the state. From what I can gather, in the US itself, it's maybe 50/50 between whether someone would associate the term with the state or the city. In upstate NY and NYC, perhaps the term more often means the state, but even then, with New York Times, New York Giants, Humans of New York, all that sort of thing, I'm sure those people don't think it means the state. Overall, New York is a WP:COMMONNAME for the city. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) This may have already been mentioned.  There is a type of systemic bias in the way this article has been titled – the local-to-national view of "New York" vs. the worldwide view.  It's not always easy to see or understand; however, more attention by those opposed to this page move should be paid to Diego's argument of the expectations of readers around the world, the "global" expectations that "New York" refers to the city, whether it be the more likely Manhattan and other bureaus or the less likely entire metropolitan area.  The title of this article, then, should be either "New York State" or, for those who argue that "State" is not a "real part of the name", then "New York (state)" should be at the very TOP.  The present title, that is, the bare "New York" would best serve the global community as (1st choice) either an ambiguous redirect that targets "New York City", (2nd choice) an ambiguous redirect that targets "New York (disambiguation)" or (3rd choice) the actual title of that disambiguation page.  I am fairly neutral in regard to where the "New York" page title is dispositioned – any one of the three would serve readers worldwide; however, this article definitely needs to be moved preferably to "New York (state)".  Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   13:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) From a global perspective, New York is the city. In most of the U.S., "I'm going to New York this weekend" means the city.  Page traffic for the city is much higher and a lot of the "New York" traffic is looking for the city (see above for details).  The harm of the current situation is that a) readers are not getting where they want and b) a lot of wikilinks are misdirected.  Normally, I wouldn't care about b) so much but it's an important issue on this scale.  —  AjaxSmack   21:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support moving this page. I am a New York City resident and I still get confused when people say "I live in New York" (maybe they live in NYC, in which case hooray I live in Queens, or else they live upstate, in which case it's a little harder to sympathize). Anyway, it is ambiguous what "New York" means in many cases, so you can either have New York redirect to the state page or have it be a disambiguation/general-concept page. In other wikis, like fr.wiki, "New York" refers to the city, for instance. Kylo Ren (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I don't see any evidence that the state is the primary topic. The city gets substantially more page views in spite of being at a less concise title. There are many incoming links to "New York" that intend the city and need to be disambiguated. Mistargeted links will get fixed if New York becomes a dab page (thanks in advance BD2412). I'm not quite sure how many readers arrive at the two articles by Wikipedia's search function. There are certainly some who are arriving at the wrong article from mistargeted links. I'd use Google to search if I wanted to read a Wikipedia article on "New York", and that search gives me the state as the first result, the city as the second, and a prominent Knowledge Graph for the city. Move the article on the state, make New York a dab page, and fix the incoming links. None of this will hinder readers from finding the article they want from external searches, but we won't be force people to be loading a long article on the state from a undisambiguated link that should be going to the city.Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've lived there, I've lived elsewhere longer.  When living there, the 'city' was Manhattan.  The state was "those *** apple farmers". When living elsewhere, "New York" has always meant the city to *everyone* I've talked to.  The preponderance of searchers will indeed expect to reach NYC.  The gravity of identification for "New York" is so weighted towards NYC it _should_ be inarguable.  I'm simply astonished y'all will argue elsewise, set theory containment and all!  Please direct your attention and efforts towards America with similar arguments and be greeted with derision.  (And that last is really the whole point - what do users expect?  Not whether it is 'correct' politically/hierarchically/numerically/demographically/etc.) Shenme (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a reason our article on the Land of E Pluribus Unum is at United States of America, not America. I'm actually arguing that our article on the City that Never Sleeps should remain at New York City, not the wider and ambiguous New York - I think you have this analogy backward.--Pharos (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically the U.S.'s article is located at United States. Kylo Ren (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Worldwide, "New York" invariably means the city so this should become the primary topic and the state should move to "New York (state)". And I suspect relatively few people have even heard of the state, sorry to say. And to suggest Wikipedia will collapse as a result of this move is surely a leg-pull! Bermicourt (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support, as generally "New York" would, to non-Americans, refer to the city, not the state. Note, for example, that "many of these [links] are mislinkings intended for NYC, almost as many are intended for NYS". Very likely, these statistics were taken after many other links were fixed from the NY article to the NYC article; it's quite likely that if the links to New York were monitored in real time, there would be many more links to the city. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – I find the pro-move arguments to be much more thoughtful, compelling, and policy-based than the arguments in opposition to it.   AgnosticAphid  talk 22:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The many good arguments above show that the state is not the primary topic.  Landing at the state page when seeking the city is a confusing surprise.  A reader needing statistics for the city may well skip to the state infobox, without reading the lead, and copy the state numbers believing them to apply to the city. Certes (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. For a start, most of the arguments against are singularly unconvincing. Irreparable harm? Aside from that, the policy-based support arguments that the state is not the primary topic and is astonishing are extremely convincing. There've been a lot of anecdotes thrown around about it, and while it's hard to say confidently what the local picture of usage is, in wider domestic usage, and unarguably in international usage, the primary topic is the city. As cities go, the city is globally significant, and globally recognisable. If the state has any similar claims to notability, I am unaware of them, which I feel itself says something anecdotally for primary topics. The only times I can think of where I've seen "New York" without a suffix refer to the state are where the context already implies are being discussed. CMD (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. The state simply doesn't meet the primary topic criteria. The title is inherently ambiguous. Arguments against are primarily emotional and unpersuasive. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. State is not the primary topic, at best it's not clear. Coming into this RM, my view was that worldwide and outside of New York state, the primary topic of New York is usually the city. The support arguments in the section above the !vote simply reinforce this with facts like pageviews and generally well-thought arguments. On the other hand, the oppose arguments directly below those arguments are unfounded claims of irreparable damage to the project if the state isn't the primary topic, insulting anyone who doesn't support the state as the primary topic as lacking commons sense, and claims of higher level jurisdictions taking precedence that has been shown to be useless because of how often it would suggest promoting non-primary topic political divisions over lower-level and obvious primary topics. A fix to the hatnote would direct readers to the state perfectly fine. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I've been watching this debate from the sidelines, and I got swayed by arguments for the move. While I generally advocate the "don't fix if ain't broken" philosophy (and have been on Wikipedia for a while), the mere June/July pageview statistics and mislinking data have convinced me that something is broken. I'm still not 100% sure what should be at the New York title, but the arguments so far indicate that it should be a disambiguation page indeed, however unpopular that might be (and I don't like them too much either). No such user (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support – The state does not meet the primary topic criteria in any sense. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. With two very well known uses, neither term is primary topic, so this should be disambiguated. kennethaw88 • talk 04:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Somewhat reluctantly, but the evidence is pretty compelling that the state isn't the primary topic worldwide. oknazevad (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support – From arguments developed in numerous contributions above, the only logical, reader-friendly and policy-supported conclusion is to execute this long-overdue change to a fortuitous status quo. Arguments against the move sound particularly weak and irrational. (forgot to !vote earlier) — JFG talk 01:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  While there is no PrimaryTopic for "New York", or if there is it is the naturally disambiguated New York City, the status quo is not problematic, as no reader should be astonished, because the two topics are connected, knowledge of one implies knowledge of the other, or at least the astonished reader should welcome and appreciate the education.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Knowledge of one implies knowledge of the other". As a foreigner to the US, I can guarantee through personal experience that such thing is not true. The city has world-wide fame, while the state does not. Diego (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In which case, you should appreciate being informed that "New York" is the name of both the city and the state, as continued ignorance of one while dealing with the other will lead you into trouble. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the astonished reader should welcome and appreciate the education, you should actually support the move; see . — JFG talk 17:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe the state is the primary topic for "New York", whereas the city belongs at "New York City". This is the cleanest way to handle this, without any unnecessary disambiguators. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The hatnote and prominent mention of NYC make for an instant fix for anyone directed wrongly, don't seek out a solution where a problem doesn't exist, or provide evidence that it does.  ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 01:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) If the state was officially called "New York State", I'd agree with the proposal—but it's officially called merely New York, so it should remain at that title. New York City is sometimes called New York, sure, but the "City" disambiguates it for us. No need to change a thing here. —   Crumpled Fire   • contribs • 01:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:COMMONNAME; we use common names, not "official" names. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Rob 13. I think you may be oversimplifying a bit? For example, Myocardial infarction is the title for what is commonly called a heart attack. Columbidae is the title for what is commonly called a pigeon. We often use the common name, but we take into consideration any official names and, in the case of living people, the subject's identification preferences. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Myocardial infarction is tricky because "heart attack" is the layperson common name while "myocardial infarction" is the common name used within the medical profession. Since the article is medical in nature, it seems sensible to use the common name within that profession; those interested in medicine are presumably the main readers of that article. It's an edge case, for sure. Columbidae is a family of birds, and it includes doves as well as pigeons, so its name is unambiguously correct as-is. The Rock dove (or "rock pigeon") is the bird most conventionally referred to as simply "the pigeon", and we do indeed use one of the common names rather than the tedious "Columba livia" scientific name for that article. There are certainly gray areas in what constitutes a common name, especially when many different subjects have the same or similar names, and we generally go with names that promote the least confusion when that happens. There is no "Pigeon" article because it's ambiguous to what constitutes a pigeon. Instead, we redirect to "Columbidae". I would consider a similar situation here (with "New York (state)" the target of a redirect at "New York" and "New York City" identified in a hatnote) to be an improvement, although still not optimal given how interchangeable "New York City" is with just "New York". ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I feel that an unqualified "New York" primarily refers to the state, not the city. Primary topic aside, I think the issues created by moving this page isn't worth the massive editor attention that would be required: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." -- Tavix  ( talk ) 02:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: With respect to the cleanup, I don't consider that an issue that should weigh into the discussion one way or another. I will take care of it myself. It would take me a few weeks, tops. bd2412  T 02:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's still a few weeks you could spend doing other, more important things. I agree that it's a minor issue, but SmokeyJoe already stole my other thoughts on the matter, so I thought I'd bring it up. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have to weight in also the effort to fix all the wrong links that will be created in the future pointing to the state when they meant the city. If those pointed to a disambiguation page instead, they'll be corrected by our standard disambiguation processes (most likely, self-corrected thanks to the bot warning to the editor that created the link). Diego (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If a person says that she is traveling to New York, virtually everyone is going to assume that the city is meant. No one interprets the bumper stickers that say, "I love New York," to refer to the state. The unqualified "New York" nearly invariably refers to the city... (There is one important exception, however: when those from upstate New York use the term.) Clean Copy (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm from upstate New York. It's still the city up here, in my experience. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the New York Department of Economic Development: "Created by Milton Glaser in 1977, the purpose of the I LOVE NY mark was to promote tourism to New York State." Also, it would be nice if we could avoid these sorts of "what first comes to mind" arguments as they are specifically discounted by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry. This |New_York_City page view analysis is more objective: NYC is simply the more frequently sought page, by far. (The ratio ranges from 2:1 to 3:1 over time, it appears.) Clean Copy (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That does prove that the city is a more widely read subject than the state. It does not prove that the specific term "New York" is more frequently used to refer to the city, which is what this move is about, and (correct me if I'm wrong) what you were arguing above. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this move is about accepting that the term "New York" can not be assumed to overwhelmingly refer to the state, nor to the city (although the city does get more traffic, it is not strongly dominant), therefore the name should be disambiguated. — JFG talk 00:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I think redirecting is not going to stop people from typing New York when they meant New York City. If New York redirects to New York City, the same will be true in that people will type New York thinking it links to the New York state. I'm amazed how strongly people feel about this page title and the effort put into the arguments above... Frankly I'm a bit neutral, and am mostly taking the WP:ENGVAR mindset that nothing is really broken and no matter what people are going to find their way to what they're looking for quite easily &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind commenting on your opinions on a disambiguation page (either here or below)? You've analyzed each of the primary topic possibilities, but not the disambiguation possibility which seems like it has the most support in the second question. Thanks. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) SmokeyJoe sums up my thoughts perfectly; I'd copy and paste it if that were acceptable. We are not slaves to primary topic, and can ignore it when necessary.  Calidum   ¤   02:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose a move in general, based on my argument above (and SmokeyJoe's much more succinct and elegant way of expressing a similar sentiment in this section). Also, Strong Oppose placing New York City at the base name, as it is clear that this will not solve, and would in fact exacerbate, the "mis-link" problems described above (to my mind, the only legitimate issue that I can see with the current arrangement). Mis-linking will still take place, except now links intended for the state will lead to the astonishingly wrong article for the city. Contrast this with having links intended for the city leading to an article that covers the city as one of the state's constituent parts (a much less wrong and confusing result for readers). A dab page at the base title would at least bring about some good (instant highlighting of lazy links), even if I don't think the problem rises to the level of action at this scale. Antepenultimate (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) No. New York has a greater population than NYC (even subtracting NYC's large population) and is greatly important. There is a natural disambiguator for the city, none for the state that isn't awkward. This signifies to me that New York housing the state's article is the best option. It's not astonishing, it's not an obscure place, and it's the most natural setup.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 05:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, by some measures your population assertion is wrong. If we don't just limit ourselves to the five NYC boroughs, but consider the global city as comprising the entire New York metropolitan area (including Newark, Liberty airport, Jersey city, the Giants and Jets stadium etc.), it has a population of 23,723,696, while the New York state has a population of just 19,795,791. Strange but true. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that definition would include so many places including and like the tiny villages Buchanan and Ardsley, which can never in any way be justified as anything remotely like or part of New York City. NYC is far smaller in population than the state, accept it. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 13:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The country of Georgia has a population of 3.7 million while the state of Georgia has a population of 10.2 million. And yet we have a disambiguation page at Georgia with repeated requested moves showing consensus to keep things that way. There's no policy, guideline, or precedent that suggests the population count of a place has any bearing on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, there's significant precedent suggesting this is not the case. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Georgias are a country and a state. This is a city that's literally part of the state that's more populated sans it. I'd say it's far more relevant here than it is there. (I don't think there is a primary topic for Georgia, lest I be accused of bias.) Nohomersryan (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Lagos is a part of Lagos State, and clearly Lagos State has a higher population than Lagos. That's rather self evident when one things contains another. But that doesn't mean the higher level entity is a primary topic. In the case of Lagos and New York, it's the city that's much more widely referred to and long term significant than the containing states. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I oppose the proposed move, for the reasons cogently stated by Pharos, Castncoot, and SmokeyJoe. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) To me it makes the most encyclopedic sense for New York to be at the base title and New York City to be where it is. There's no way that NYC will ever be straight up New York, so this current setup handles things cleanly... it's still the same amount of clicks to get to the city as it would be on a disambiguation page, it's not astonishing to end up here, and New York has no natural amendment to its title like NYC does. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about one thing - it is astonishing to end up at the state when you type "New York". I first came across this in 2006, and believe me, I was astonished. I dare say many millions of other readers are too. That's why the current situation is so odd and needs rectifying. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not in the least astonishing if you're at all familiar with New York City, it's the most ordinary thing in the world, and the reader learning that these are both jurisdictions is very important to understanding the area - I would say what you had in 2006 was a positively educational experience, and that's exactly our goal here.--Pharos (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If the goal is making readers aware that the term refers both to the city and the state, the disambiguation page is the most efficient way to achieve that. Diego (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I strongly oppose of this move. I was the one who originally requested a move for New York to be renamed New York (state). However, many users have provided evidence that New York (state) is the primary topic of New York. Higher-level jurisdictions have primary topic, such as the country of Georgia over the U.S. state. Leave the set-up the way it is, it works great. New York City is natural and is commonly refer to with "City" in the name, among American citizens. Worldwide, New York (the city) is most popular, but a hat note solves the problem. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀   19:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Click on Georgia and you'll find yourself at a disambiguation page, making this a perfect counter-example. Yes, the country is bigger, but no, it is not the case that most people looking up Georgia on an English-language encyclopedia want to find the country rather than the state. Clean Copy (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my comment does not make since, chief. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀   21:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) New York State is much larger and is entirely inclusive of New York City.  And local usage in an English-speaking region of 20 million people should count for something - would we do the same with Australian toponyms, ignoring what local governments and citizens call their own localities,  in favor of Hollywood nicknames?  Despite myself being a proud citizen of New York City, I certainly recognize that the state (which has more than double the city's population) is clearly the more major topic.--Pharos (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the "local usage" of at least half of that population of 20 million--those who live in the NY metropolitan area, sorry, I mean the NYC metropolitan area--either refers to the city by default or is highly ambiguous. Clean Copy (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As a lifelong Brooklynite, I can tell you that the local municipal usage here is very much "New York City", not "New York". This is not everyone's experience, but it is certainly mine.--Pharos (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As a lifelong Queensite, I second that. Kylo Ren (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The city is currently at New York City because that's the name. "City" is not a form of disambiguation, at least not in the Wikipedia sense of the word. For example, Britannica uses "New York City" even though their software allows them to have more than one article at the same title. As there is no title clash, there is no primary topic issue to adjudicate. Editors are not SEO specialists and should not be trying to optimize navigation. The page view analysis above shows that the views for the city remained constant even as the article on the state was moved around. So the claim that moving the article on the state will help readers find the city article is unproven. Gulangyu (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't expect our readers to throw their hands up in the air and jump off a cliff when they reach the wrong page; they just have to put in extra effort to find the right one. This is inconvenient and should be minimized. Previously, the path the New York City article would have been typing in New York, getting the wrong article, and then finding the right one. When the article was moved, the path was just typing in New York and clicking on the right article. Each equals one page view for New York City (i.e. no page view change) but the latter equals less page views for New York (state). This is exactly what we see in the page view statistics, proving that there are a substantial number of people who previously reached New York (state) but didn't intend to go there. Unless you're arguing that we should take a complacent attitude when it comes to convenience and getting them where they want to go without erroneously sending them to a different article, this is as strong as proof could possibly be that a change is needed. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If the same number of readers went to the city article before as after, then the claim that one setup is more convenient than the other is entirely subjective. I take it that when New York led to the state, some 45 percent of readers used the hatnote to get to the city. Just one click and they are there. What's the problem? Gulangyu (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The analysis shows a significant number of readers did not have to load a ~185,000 byte article that they did not want. I'd say that's a problem. older ≠ wiser 10:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose a move. Strongly oppose direction of the term "New York" to a primary disambiguation page as well. Wikipedia, New York, and New York City would all be irreparably harmed, and corresponding Wikiproject and Category pages would be undermined. The consequences would have reverberating, devastating consequences all around. The status quo, while perhaps not perfect, has been maintained firmly now for over a decade by editorial wisdom, after extensive vetting every 5 or 6 years, for this very reason, and has functioned quite well. Older may not always equate to being wiser, but I believe that in this particular case, history has indeed gotten the correct answer already. Also please note my more specific, detailed arguments above to oppose this move unequivocally. The overriding principle should be to DO NO HARM. Castncoot (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: New York, New York is not a stutter, they have even written songs about it.  It's actually Wikipedia's purpose to educate, not debate. The longstanding convention (having an NYC article and an NY article) is a sign of a long standing consensus, and none of the evidence provided forces a change under WP:NAME. So, the change position has failed its burden.  The longstanding NYC usage also goes well with "encyclopedic register", as WP:Name defers to, and because it does, NY is perfectly apporiate under all name criteria as it is the commonname for the state.  This entire RfC fits well within NAMES: 'debating titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So using a term ambiguously fits well with an "encyclopedic register"? That's quite interesting. older ≠ wiser 21:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just plainly untrue that to call the state New York is ambiguous, it's done by millions, upon millions every day, and as NYC is common for NYC, and encyclopedic, than that article belongs there. It's natural. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that the term "New York" is ambiguous in that it is commonly used to refer to both the city or the state. It is also clear that the state fails the criteria for primary topic (at the very least based on usage test and arguably on the long-term notability test as well). It is also "natural" for millions of people across the world (and including both New York State and New York City) to refer to the city as New York. older ≠ wiser 21:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that a decade and more of Wikipedians have found such arguments and assertions to be both unsupported and unpersuasive. The context in which it is used is unambiguous and has been since the article was begun.  It fails nothing of the sort - your statement that it is common to refer to the state as New York is unassailable, but the rest is bluster, there is no other primary target for the encyclopedic topic New York City, the commonname New York for New York therefore best naturally meets all the criteria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that a decade and more of contested discussions about the name shows at least some significant number of Wikipedians don't agree with your conclusion. The context in which it is used included both typing "New York" into the search box and clicking on links that should go to the city but are mislinked because editors assumed differently than you about what New York means. "New York State" is also as much a common and natural name for the state as "New York City" is for the city. There has been no convincing evidence provided whatsoever that the state is the primary topic. That's not bluster, just a statement of fact. older ≠ wiser 01:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Typing it in the box gives the natural, common NYC and NY. Your second argument is that some editors don't pay attention and are sloppy in checking when they edit, how bad for Wikipedia - it's worse to coddle it - your argument promotes not understanding topics editors are writing about. This all goes along, in that the common sense world beyond Wikipedia has told us that NYC is in NY - no other major US city has the commoname, natural C - this arrangement is more educative and informative and sensibly disambiguates. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? A person who is looking for the city may well type or paste "New York" into to search box and would end up at the state article unless they happened to notice some other options before completing the search. Yes, there are many many such editors that make such links and with the current setup they are effectively ignored. (Besides, the mere fact that so many editors make links to New York intending the city is pretty strong evidence that something is wrong with the current arrangement. With a disambiguation page such mistaken links would be rapidly and easily fixed. To leave the situation as it is shows an inexcusable disregard for readers. older ≠ wiser 13:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Paste it in gives New York City and New York, typing in just "New" gives New Zealand and NYC, no problem, whatsoever. No, editors are not ignored, they are educated to do it right. It's the same problem and solution with every link in every article, check what you are doing, learn what you are doing. Our readers are not disserved except by the careless but that is always true, and here any real misdirection is often not true -- if someone is born in New York City, they are born in New York, if something takes place in NYC, it takes place in NY, on top of which the reader easily find there way. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what search box you are using, but if you type or paste in "New York" and press Enter, you get the state article. This business of (re-)education of editors smacks of totalitarianism. Wikipedia reflects real world usage, not what some self-appointed authorities deem is correct usage. We best serve our readers by making it easier to edit rather than complicating things by righting great wrongs. older ≠ wiser 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't jump the shark, it's as if your statement has no idea what it's discussing, a sterile rerun of a lost argument having nothing to do with "totalitarianism". Seriously. As for Wikipedia's purpose not being to educate, we will have to disagree. The real world gave us NYC and NY. That is reflective of the real world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the blather about sharks and sterility—there are many approaches to education. Forcing readers to go to load a giant page that they did not want in order to get to the page they actually want seems an extremely blunt approach to education. A fast-loading disambiguation page would have the exact same effect in letting readers know New York is ambiguous and commonly refers to both the city and the state. And would have the additional benefit of easily allowing mistaken links to be fixed. Maintaining the status quo effectively means endorsing that mistaken links should be ignored. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you want people to ignore your ridiculous and embarrassing comments about totalitarianism. Understood.  As for forcing someone, no one is forced to do anything, learn and teach is good, though. As for reruns of sterile debates, it says right in NAME policy they are a waste. Have not you had your say in my section, yet. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I chose to ignore your comments as doing nothing to further civil discourse. I stand by my comments that this attitude of "educating" editors to stop doing what is perfectly natural and common to do smacks of a totalitarian, top-down sense of authority. I think such a mentality is ultimately counter-productive. As for forcing, yes, a reader who clicks on a link that should go to the city article but instead goes to the state article is in effect forced to do this. An editor entering New York in the search box expecting the term to go to the city and instead going to the state is in effect forced to do this. I don't know what NAME policy you mean. WP:AT doesn't mention any variant of sterile. Neither does WP:NCPLACE. older ≠ wiser 14:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You find it uncivil but you're the one who comments ridiculously and embarrassingly about totalitarianism. Now, that's plain senseless or hypocritical. I mentioned the section of NAMES policy in my original comment - it implies this is a sterile exercise by saying find something better to do.  More importantly, it's perfectly natural, indeed most desirable, under policy and common sense, to want and have educated editors about what they are writing and doing -- it's plain nonsense to argue that is somehow wrong. ENGVAR, as well as core policies, and other policies actually do desire it, very much. And common sense: know what you are writing and doing when writing an encyclopedia is unassailable. Perhaps, you should do the civil thing and stop bludgeoning my section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is embarrassing for you—I find nothing ridiculous, embarrassing, senseless, or hypcritical about pointing out totalitarian tendencies. I'll grant that debating controversial titles is often unproductive—but then again, when the status quo (IMO) so plainly disregards the readership, I think that is a debate worth having and five years after the last major discussion consensus can change. I'll respect whatever decision comes out of this, but if it is for keeping the status quo (which in essence boils down to telling readers and editors to stop doing what is natural and commonplace—and NOT even incorrect by any standard usage), I can pretty much guarantee that someone somewhere down the line will question it again and I'll likely make the same arguments then. Also, I didn't realize that you owned this section. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't, but that does not make your bludgeoning of the oppose civil. It is not.   That you are not embarrassed by your ridiculous and bizarre reference to totalitarianism is more shame on your argument or suggests an unbelievably and easily misused word, given what it actually means, or you do not know what you are discussing and where you are discussing it.  Or since your comment is so bizarre and over-the-top, for this debate, you say you want, it is possible that it was not made in good-faith, and thus heaps incivility upon incivility.  That you appear hypocritical was your reference to civility, while you violate it.  In no sense, under policy or in real life is valuing encyclopedia editors knowing what they are writing and doing have anything to do with totalitarian tendencies.
 * Actually, this just boils down to having just an NYC and an NY article, which makes perfect sense to the world, and has for a long time. The future will take care of itself and if it is raised again in another five years then the policy advice against such sterile discussion will again be relevant -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears we've reached a point where more discussion is pointless. older ≠ wiser 17:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. If there was such a strong consensus for the name, it wouldn't keep coming up again and again at RM. A large number of people feel the current situation is wrong. Now I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I predict that as and when this move eventually gets made, nobody will ever come back and try to reassert New York for the state. You'd never propose such a move if it wasn't already in place. We've seen that at Washington as well. The state was the primary topic for some years, until eventually in 2010 a disambig page was put there instead. Nobody has ever proposed moving the state back there since. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's clear that editors informed opinions don't suit your arguments. It's been what, more than half a decade since anyone has engaged in this sterile exercise to no avail. Otherwise, why bludgeon the oppose section. Editors set it up this way because it's quite sensible and natural, whether some like it or not.  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It makes the most sense to keep the largest political subdivision that carries the name as the primary topic. New York City is a part of New York, and it only makes sense to have our article naming structured to reflect that. Monty  845  01:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See here for numerous examples where this has not been the best solution. Cl ea n Co py talk 14:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) As much as I would love New York City to be the primary topic I believe moving and changing names is only going to cause more harm and confusion than good, There's currently a hatnote so anyone wanting the city will find the city..., – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) There are two uses of New York that *tower* over the rest: New York (state), and New York City. I'm hugely in favor of one of them being at "New York" and the other linked via Hatnote, because this is what readers want a huge amount of the time.  While the alternate universe where NYC was chosen as the base of "New York" would be okay, there are certain nice effects to having the state be here, like "New York, New York" working like "Springfield, Ohio" would elsewhere.  There's also simple inertia: one of them needs to win, in this case the state won, let it be, it's not worth re-tossing the coin and causing churn even if the decision is arbitrary.  Having a disambiguation page be the base page is terrible; it forces an extra click and uglier disambiguation links for no particular reason.  So NY (state) @ New York > NYC @ New York >>>>> NY (disambig) @ New York.  SnowFire (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) *"New York, New York" would still work like "Springfield, Ohio", just like "Seattle, Washington" and "Atlanta, Georgia" do right now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When a city requires disambiguation, that matters for that one city and none other. When a state requires disambiguation, it applies to every single city & town in it.  (Of course, strictly speaking, the example address will go to New York County aka Manhattan no matter where NYC ends up, so you're not actually correct even if your move succeeds...)  Obviously, sometimes there is no choice for the likes of Washington (state), but it's nice to avoid it.  SnowFire (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation doesn't apply to all cities and towns - we would just leave those where they are, just like we have articles called Fife, Washington and Albany, Georgia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) No such move! No such change! No no no no, no! Very much opposing this very very bad and insulting idea! Such a move would be insulting and disrupting to the more than 1 billion people of Africa. African children are studying in the schooling systems that New York is a state in America like the state of California or the state of Illinois and that New York City is a city like Chicago and Los Angeles. Wikipedia cannot simply ignore Africa!!! What, then we will have to be changing to teaching that New York has now actually become a city and is no longer a state, and the state name has now been changed to New York (state)? Is somebody crazy? Does he not realise that Wikipedia will be bearing the responsibility for confusing more than one billion Africans, and even worse, be corrupting our childrens' education? No!!! MazabukaBloke (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How we use a disambiguator doesn't change the name of the state. You'll have to teach them that New York City is sometimes called New York, which can mean both the city and the state. Same as you'd have to teach them that Georgia can be a state or a country. I don't think the fact that sometimes two things have the same name will surprise even a child, and it isn't like we're making up the names here; we're going by what these things are called in the real world. The "how am I going to explain this to my kids!" argument didn't work for gay marriage, so I'd be amazed if it worked here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your words would be more compelling and less blusterous if they were supported by news sources. When I was in Africa (many years ago), any mention of New York referred to the city, so if that has changed or is changing, then that is a good thing.  However, just to say it has changed would not compel me to believe it out of hand.  Can you cite any sources to back up what you say?  Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) There are similar ambiguities with the U.S. states of Washington and Georgia. In the case of New York, I don't find the arguments against having New York for the state and New York City very convincing. I appreciate all the time and energy that users have devoted to this discussion, but personally I still don't see a problem in need of fixing. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your proposed solution to the problem of a high number incoming links to New York that were intended for the city? If you don't find that problematic, you must have in mind a simple way to handle them before they cause confusion to our readers. Diego (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are similar, though not exactly the same, ambiguities with regard to the American states of Washington and Georgia. And, lo and behold, the state of Washington is at Washington (state) and the state of Georgia is at Georgia (U.S. state). No topics can claim primary topic status for the terms Georgia or Washington, and hence disambiguation is required. Likewise, in this case. Therefore, your argument doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't you support a resolution to the present problem of the state of New York taking primary topic status for New York, despite not meeting the primary topic criteria, along the lines of what is done for Georgia and Washington? RGloucester  — ☎ 17:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi RGloucester. Of course we have a redirect at New York (state) that works perfectly well. If there were a country named New York, as there is with Georgia, that would be a different matter. I don't see it as problematic that we have New York for the state and New York City for the city. It seems like a pretty clean solution to the ambiguity. As I said below, users mistakenly linking certainly happens, but it's hardly exclusive to this case. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Having a redirect doesn't 'work' in line with the disambiguation guidelines. This article should be at that title, or a similar one, disambiguated, as it does not have primary topic status, just as with the states of Georgia and Washington, both of which are at disambiguated titles. The present situation is not a clean solution to the ambiguity, as 'New York' does not unambiguously refer to the state. I honestly just don't understand what you're trying to say. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Diego Moya. I'm not sure how the linking situation for New York would be different than what we deal with when linking to Georgia or Washington. The problem that I think you're describing&mdash;users linking to the wrong target&mdash;isn't really specific to New York, as far as I can tell. A slightly different case that I often encounter comes from misspellings. People will create links such as Alanis Morisette and because that's a blue (or purple) link, it's difficult to immediately notice that the intended target/spelling is Alanis Morissette. If you're really interested in fixing the New York link issue, I can likely work with you to develop some reports or tools so that we can clear out the backlog of mistaken links. (We already have for the similar case I mentioned.) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the present problem of about half the links that go to "New York" should go to the city is already being worked on. What supporters are trying to do here is to try to keep future linking errors from happening.  It does little good to fix existing links if the problem that caused them is not also fixed.  You say you don't see a problem in the present naming.  Is not this problem enough?  Is the fact that the rest of the world and also many of those who live in New York, whether the state or the city, consider any mention of "New York" as referring to the city, not the state, not something that you would consider a significant systemic bias problem?  Or do you simply close your eyes to this?  Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   18:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The obvious difference is that Washington and Georgia link to disambiguation pages, so an editor linking to those names will get a warning instructing them to fix the link to the intended article; while New York currently links to the state article, so links intended for the city will silently fail with no obvious way to detect the mistake. The problem is not the current backlog of wrong links, which could be fixed with a sprint of volunteers; the main problem is how we could detect and fix all the links that will be created in the future. The current status quo will require us to repeat such springs every once in a while. Diego (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. I have always referred to the state as New York and the city as New York City, and it always seems odd to me when I hear the city referred to as simply "New York" or the state as "New York State". pʰeːnuːmuː  →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  18:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Support for New York City as primary topic

 * 1)  New York City is, if any, the primarytopic because it was named and became famous before there was a state, or colony, of New York.  New York (city) was in New Netherland, which is not synonymous with early New York State.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is actually historically wrong, the city was named after the state (or rather, the larger English province that existed at the time).--Pharos (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for that? The city existed before the province as Dutch city. The English acquired both the city and surrounding area in the same campaign and from what I can tell renamed both city and administrative province at the same time -- although at that point in time, the city was practically synonymous with the province as the principal center of commerce with some farming and timber villages out in the province. older ≠ wiser 22:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the city and state were both named "New York" at the same time, in 1664. (See Province of New York.) The city was originally named New Amsterdam, though. Kylo Ren (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but New York state/colony was named after the city, it could not have been vice versa because the colony boundaries were in the decision invented, not derived from the preceding New Netherland boundaries. So, in terms of long term significance, the city has historical precedence.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is I think incorrect, the English province and city were created at the same time, and the province's borders were basically the same as those of New Netherland (they only split off New Jersey as a separate province later).--Pharos (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support. I believe that this should and will be the eventual result in any case, once the smoke clears from these discussions. But there is a definite short-term benefit to having the DAB at the base name while the links are cleaned up, and little downside even if this becomes permanent. The third option, of a broad concept page, has relatively little benefit (there is a little, but the DAB is far preferable) and was only proposed because it seemed to me to address all of the concerns of those strongly supporting the HLJC. This now seems not to be the case, I still don't see why not, but there you are. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) It would have to be this one. With so many people searching for "New York," we should at least make some people happy by taking them somewhere they're looking for, instead of a disambiguation page that helps no one. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) The city can claim primary topic status as it gets nearly 16,000 views a day compared to 8,000 for the state.|New_York_City I concur with Tavix. We don't want to disappoint readers by sending them to a disambiguation page. I hope I am not voting for a title change. I think the city should stay at New York City. Gulangyu (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support per Tavix and Gulanyu.  I believe the city should remain at New York City, but a disambiguation page will not really be helpful to any of our readers.--Pharos (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support as per Tavix. (I have changed my mind due to the relative page view numbers.) Redirect to the most frequently accessed page would be the simplest solution for most users and would be no harder for those looking for the state page than passing through a dab page.  Cl ea n Co py talk 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. City is primary topic worldwide. Why force all readers to a DAB page when we can direct them to what most of them are looking for and have a hatnote in case they were looking for the state? Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Support for the disambiguation page at this title

 * 1) Enough people will search for both at the "New York" title that it's worth having the disambiguation. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) While I do agree that more people expect to find the city at "New York" than the state, the numbers are not so overwhelming as to negate the fundamental ambiguity. older ≠ wiser  03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) If a move must take place, then this is the only move that would bring about a positive result for readers, as incoming links to the dab page could be periodically checked and specified to their intended destination. With NYC at the base, links intended for the state that instead point to the city would be difficult to detect and incredibly misleading for readers. "New York" links intended for the state will continue to be added, even after a temporary dab period (as suggested by Andrewa) is over - especially given how "New York" is the natural suffix accepted by adhering to WP:USPLACE article title guidelines for localities within the state. Also note that many infoboxes (especially Geoboxes) have fields for "State" and the likelihood that someone would type "New York (state)" in such a field is next to zero. Antepenultimate (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) I oppose a move, but if one has to happen New York needs to be a disambiguation page. There isn't a primary topic for the city being NY and I'm really not sure if you call it the WP:COMMONNAME either.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 05:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) This is by far the safest option. While it could be argued that people are more likely to be looking for the city (as shown by the readership statistics linked above), a direct link to that article might have the same ambiguity problems, and wrong incoming links would be equally difficult to fix. Disambiguation pages are a great resource as they allow readers to navigate to the article they (not WP editors) have in mind, let's use them for good. Diego (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) It is clear to me that if either of the two concepts is PTOPIC then it is the city, not the state. The city is number one in most measures for global city status, and is more highly viewed than the state. That said, the state is not unimportant either, with its share of readers, and at this time I think dab page serves better than a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT or moving NYC here.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Sorry, but if you do the NY - NY (state) move, you're going to have a whole lot of state mislinks based on changing the status quo that's been in place for a very long time. Pointing NY at a different non-disambiguation page? Sounds like a nightmare. NY being a disambiguation page makes the most sense if it happens. (Can I ask what is exactly accomplished by redirecting "New York" to the disambiguated state as I've seen talked about above?) Nohomersryan (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The benefit is to buy some time in order to disambiguate internal links to New York without temporarily disrupting the encyclopedia. This is the main reason why the 2008 move was promptly reverted. Learning from that lesson, the 2016 move was cleaner, the disambig work started well and we saw positive results, then the move was overturned and here we are debating, hopefully for the last time. As soon as a large enough chunk of New York links are fixed, New York can safely become the dab page; this process was estimated to last a few weeks, tops. — JFG talk 17:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctantly. I think there'd be a big clean up effort to disambiguate all of those links &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  18:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) * I would note that such an effort is needed anyway, as there are a substantial proportion of incorrect links. bd2412  T 18:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Any move of "New York" to the NYC page, while unpreferred, would be much more hazardous than moving to a disambig page. People linking "New York" in many articles would expect it to direct to the state, especially if writing "".  ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 19:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal: most links to US settlements are in the form, not   (which in many cases has Town ambiguous so would need to be written   if people wanted a separate link to the state, a practice discouraged by MOS:OVERLINK). See relevant titling and linking guidelines at WP:USPLACE. Irrespective of the move decision, replacing current links to   with   is an easily automated task. — JFG talk 11:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the number of people above who state plainly that they don't believe hardly anyone has heard of the state, or that no-one thinks of the state when presented with the words "New York" (no matter how many times WP:NWFCTM is linked), invoking MOS:OVERLINK to remove links to "New York" (referring to the state) doesn't seem applicable. OVERLINK discourages links for "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" and "The names of major geographic features, locations..." (emphasis original). Clearly "New York" is not understood by many commenting here to mean the state, with some commenting that they've never heard of the state, and so such links are apparently sorely needed; others are arguing against the state having international significance, so it doesn't seem to be a "major" location to some readers (I disagree, of course). And yet, still no-one thinks that the term "New York" is so ambiguous that we should change such article titles as "Place, New York", or New York-related categories, with it being stated that it is 'understood in context' apparently (which seems to support a WP:NATURAL argument for the state at the base name). I don't see how these various arguments and viewpoints are consistent with each other - is the state so major of a topic that it should not be linked or disambiguated within titles, or is it an insignificant obscurity that should move to make way for the city article? (I know you are not arguing both of these viewpoints, I just want to make sure that the volume of incompatible reasoning presented above isn't mistaken for consensus.)By the way, even if we disagree on the need for this change, I just would like to mention that I really appreciate that you are one of the few bringing actual hard evidence to this discussion (particularly your analysis of titles at international Wikipedias). I think you've espoused a clear argument for a dab page at the base title, I still just don't think the problem rises to a level necessitating the effort and disruption this change would bring, though I don't think a dab solution would actually be a bad outcome, here. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy is independent of the fame or obscurity of the larger geographical context. Cl ea n Co py talk 14:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, ; I think we need to put all imaginable arguments on the table once and for all; I'm definitely not looking forward to rehashing this debate in 2022! To your point: MOS:OVERLINK, while debatable, is not the only issue at play here. When writing about the fine city of Rochester, New York, suppose an editor "mindlessly" types , the software will warn him that   is ambiguous. Now there are two ways to solve this, and the simplest one is to combine the links into  , the other being to spit out the lengthy and typo-prone  , which I would argue only experienced editors will choose, and then only if they intend to make a point of linking to the state in addition to the city. When mentioning a city in prose, you are rarely talking about the state per se; rather the state name acts as a precision qualifier for the city name, both to disambiguate and to direct the reader's mind towards a particular region where your city is located. Compare Rochester, New York hosts a fabulous collection of vintage astronomical instruments in its science museum. with For decades, Rochester has been the third most populated city in New York. — the second sentence begs for a link to the state (because it talks about the city and the state) whereas the first one is better served by linking the city only (because it only talks about the city and its science museum). So the most natural action is to combine both words into a single link to the disambiguated city name; it happens to be clear and convenient for readers too, and I suspect those considerations played a role in shaping the WP:USPLACE naming policy. If New York points to a dab page, the proverbial mindless editor will get two warnings instead of one, and will be even more likely to follow the USPLACE convention instead of going to the trouble of creating two convoluted piped links. All in all, things should look fine and dandy… — JFG talk 16:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I am having trouble finding the guidance for constructing links in WP:USPLACE, which seems to focus solely on article titles, not links in prose. As one of those editors who does take the time to create as many piped links as necessary to link to relevant topics in prose, I am interested if I am really going against policy when linking the state for a locality article. I always thought that not including a separate link for the state for simple constructions (i.e. "Example County, New York") was out of laziness (i.e., as you mention, to avoid pipes in simple "Place, State" links), since whenever a subjects spans (for instance) two counties, the state is separated from the piped county links and is invariably linked. Also, for all the background noise of removing OVERLINKS that occurs on my watchlist, I have never seen a state link removed. This is relevant as it may be artificially deflating the number of incoming links for the state article, unless they truly are OVERLINKS, which I am genuinely interested in determining. I don't believe they are, any more than a link to NYC is in an article about a location within that city. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, the USPLACE guideline doesn't make a specific recommendation about link style in prose, however it's fairly obvious that the endorsed "Town, State" convention allows easy linking to the town by including the state's name in the link anchor. Editors are naturally free to just link the town's full name or take the trouble of adding an extra link for the state. In my opinion the writer should ask themselves: what am I talking about? and link accordingly, as in my Rochester examples above. And yes we're drifting off-topic but this is a pleasureable and rewarding conversation. — JFG talk 03:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm afraid you have a fairly strong contradiction right there, Antepenultimate. That something feels natural when it is in context doesn't imply that it will work the same when you remove its context, as it happens when you use it as an article's base name. Diego (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a contradiction, you and I disagree about what is understood without the context. I think it's plainly understandable in simple prose (though somewhat ambiguous, hence my support for a dab page if a move must happen), others state it isn't. Somehow, having a word and a comma before the state name in an article title, or its use in a category title, suddenly clears up the confusion for people who claim they only think of the city when they hear "New York" - I don't see how that magically makes everything clear, but there you go. My theory is that it isn't confusing either with or without such extremely thin context. Not a contradiction, but a disagreement. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting and original argument but I don't think it will wash (and seems to be in the wrong section, it's mainly about whether or not to move, but IMO it's not worth moving the discussion now). As I understand it, you're saying that all the arguments supporting a move on the grounds that people naturally link to New York when they mean New York City (and this would include most if not all of the discussion about primary topic, as well as all evidence relating to mislinking) should be discounted because the policy is that we shouldn't wikilink New York meaning New York City at all, regardless of context. For example, all links of the form  New York  would be banned by this interpretation of the policy. No, I think that's a stretch. Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for anything such as you suggest at the end of your comment. To make it as plain as possible: I am simply bringing evidence that a bare "New York" is frequently and naturally used to refer to the state, by highlighting its widespread and uncontroversial use per WP:USPLACE. I feel this is on par with others bringing evidence such as "newyork.com" to argue the other direction. That NYC is a more frequently sought topic is important, but moot if it cannot be shown that "New York" is the most natural and frequently used way to refer to the city, over "New York City", its current title (in specific terms of whether NYC should be at the base title; I think most actual evidence points to the term being ambiguous enough to consider a dab at the base title if change must happen). Its not meant to be a slam dunk but just one bit of evidence, certainly not trying to control people's preferred piping style. And I do sincerely apologize for going so off-topic in this section. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It can go either way. Most of the links for "New York" mean the state, but a large minority mean the city. A dab page is the best way to weed out these links. Also, both are very important topics, though the city may seem more so, but it's not like one article has 10 daily views and the other has ten thousand. Kylo Ren (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) There are many links intending the city that are currently pointing to "New York". Make "New York" a dab page so everything get sent to the intended article. Plantdrew (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) If the state article is moved. I'm not really decided on whether the state article should be moved (I can see good arguments either way), so I'm not taking a stand on that issue. But if the decision is to move it, please don't put the city article here. Too much ambiguity. Let the disambiguation page sit here if the state does not. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) To Americans, "New York" refers to the state. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support. I think the city is the primary topic but many do not.  In practical terms, bad links to the wrong New York will be easier to find if they point to a dab. Let's reconsider pointing New York directly to the city once existing links are fixed and we have experience from the dab page. Certes (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) There is no primary topic. Period. Some people first think of the state when they hear "New York", some people first think of the City. Whatever. There's no way you can convince me that either of those topics is significantly more likely than the other to be intended when a random user types "New York" into the search bar. It could be either one, and any attempt by editors to presume one over the other would be introducing our personal biases into the encyclopedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) There is no clear primary topic, and our guidelines and policies suggest that a disambiguation page is the appropriate solution in a case such as this.  RGloucester  — ☎ 21:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) With two very well known uses, neither term is primary topic, so this should be disambiguated. kennethaw88 • talk 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) The flip side of the state not being the primary topic worldwide is that there is no clear primary topic, making disambiguation the only acceptable solution. Plus, with no clear primary topic, I strongly oppose any future proposal to move the city article away from the naturally disambiguated "New York City", so strongly think the base title should be a disambiguation page. oknazevad (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) The city definitely does not seem to me to be the primary topic.  pʰeːnuːmuː  →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  18:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) From arguments developed in numerous contributions above, the only logical, reader-friendly and policy-supported conclusion is a dab page (forgot to !vote earlier) — JFG talk 01:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Support for a broad concept page on geographic uses of "New York" at this title

 * No, instead prefer a broad concept page on history of uses of "New York" at this title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of like Ireland? ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀   18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. But more so, because boundaries of New York colony/state less non-varying as are the boundaries of the island.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: As stated above, I proposed a BCA as an alternative only because it seemed to address all of the concerns of those who wanted an article that included the state in its scope at the base name New York, and who feel that irreparable harm will result otherwise. If you look at the arguments opposing the move, they're all basically of this form or varieties of the it ain't broke, hasn't killed anyone yet line... an example of passion and indifference coexisting that might be at least part of a PhD in psych for someone, someday. A BCA seemed a good way to address these passionate concerns while not completely ignoring the article title conventions. Anyway, point being, I was totally wrong in thinking that these contributors would think a BCA a better idea than a DAB (I'm quite intrigued at this) and so I'm surprised that it even gets one vote. Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion 3: If there is consensus to change the current name of this page, what should be the state's new title?
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this debate and in previous move discussions, several potential names have been put forward for the page talking about New York as a state. If the current discussion results in a page move, it would be nice to agree on which name serves readers best. Naturally, all these variants will redirect to the main title chosen.


 * This should be a larger discussion, as there should be a standard for all states. At the moment there are two other states with names that need clarification in the title:

These two should be reconciled and NY, if it moves, placed in the same category. Cl ea n Co py talk 11:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The state of Georgia is at Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Washington state is at Washington (state)
 * There is a standard for page titles of US states: it's the plain unadorned state name. Georgia, Washington and New York are exceptions, each for different reasons, so I don't think there's any urge to standardize the exceptions to the standard among themselves. We should use what works best for each case. — JFG talk 07:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with JFG as Georgia (U.S. state) is qualified with respect to another country, while Washington (state) is qualified with respect to a district within the same country, so there is a need here to mark the exceptions with the best possible qualifier. In the case of New York, that would be New York (state).  This should by no means infer that Georgia (U.S. state) should be requalified as Georgia (state), because in the case of the title "Georgia", a modifier of (state) would be an incomplete disambiguation.  Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   18:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK -- that makes sense. Thanks. Cl ea n Co py talk 11:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pleasure!  Paine 

Rename to New York (state)

 * 1) Support. The name of the state is clearly "New York", and yet New York City is globally the primary topic, so the "state" qualifier is needed in the title of this article.  Since the name of the state is not really "New York State", then New York (state) will best serve gentle readers.  "(U.S. state)" may also serve readers well as the disambiguator; however, IMHO "(state)" is the optimal choice.  Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support to prevent confusion that the actual state is officially named "New York State". I think the arguments for "New York State" are reasonable, but it has some serious potential to confuse. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support to follow our usual convention.  We would have named the state article "New York" but that title is already in use for a different page, so add a disambiguator as with "Washington (state)".  Note: this logic does not extend automatically to Georgia.  "Georgia (state)" would not disambiguate, because Georgia (country) is also a state, specifically a state (polity) and a sovereign state. A more precise disambiguator such as Georgia (U.S. state) remains necessary. Certes (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support to ease future links to the state via the pipe trick. There's something to be said for "New York State", but a) in most usages the "S" is not capitalized because it is not treated as part of a proper name and b) the technical benefits of allowing pipe trick outweigh other considerations. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support if the page has to be moved. We have "Washington (state)" instead of "Washington State", which is used in similar contexts to "New York State". pʰeːnuːmuː  →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  18:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as there are already many (>20,000) direct links to this page, currently a redirect. Cl ea n Co py talk 04:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as the standard method of disambiguation by type - e.g, Washington (state), Mercury (planet). And no need for th US, as no other entity called New York is plausibly a state. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. No ambiguity with other state-level entities. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Some people internationally, and indeed the state's own website, do say "New York State", but I think it's clear that the WP:COMMONNAME for the state is simply "New York", and as with Washington (state) and Georgia (U.S. state), a parenthesized disambiguator seems best. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support for disambiguation consistency. ("State of New York" potentially makes more sense than "New York State" imo) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 22:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per consistency. However, if the city remains at the current title of New York City, than I would support New York State. That is, if the state New York is not primary topic. <b style="color:limegreen">Ḉɱ̍</b> 2nd anniv.   02:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support while I'm undecided if the page should be moved at all, this would definitely be the best choice as it matches the format of "Washington (state)" as Od Mishehu and Phinumu point out. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support as simplest and least potential for confusion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, consistent with other similar articles, and does not make it look like the state's official name is "New York State", which it isn't. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The city's official name is not "New York City", and no one writes "New York (state)". See WP:NATURAL and WP:NATURALNESS. I'm not sure why there is a landslide of support in favour of a proposal that directly contravenes our policies and guidelines, and really doesn't make sense when New York City is at New York City, and when the state's own website uses "New York State" exclusively. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor does Georgia (U.S. state) or Bob Smith (Australian politician) use these as part of their titles, but some differentiation is necessary when there are multiple entities with the same name. Cl ea n Co py talk 15:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference is WP:NATURAL. No one ever refers to the American state of Georgia as "Georgia State". Per WP:NATURAL, when "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" is available, we use that as the title, in preference to parenthetical disambiguation. As such, "New York State" makes the most sense. There is no reason to use the un-natural parenthetical disambiguator here when a WP:NATURAL one is available. That's why New York City is at New York City and not New York (city). The idea that the "officialness" of either the "State" or "City" appendages comes into play does not align with our guidelines and policies, and, furthermore, the idea that people are defending "New York City", whilst saying that "New York State" is not official doesn't make any sense, as neither is official: both represent a form of WP:NATURAL disambiguation. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Sorry this is so late, I was not intending to vote on the question of this new name at all, but just realised that Ohio State and several other similar names commonly refer to US universities, so New York State should be avoided as confusing. This is probably not a problem to US readers, but we cater to all English speakers, not just US or even all native English speakers, but all English speakers however little English they may speak. Andrewa (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, people here in the UK are more likely to say "New York State" probably than Americans are, for the simple reason that for us, "New York" unadorned always means the city. Therefore much as many in the US say "New York City" to clarify that they don't mean the state, many here say "New York State" to clarify that they don't mean the city (and they are correspondingly less likely than Americans to say "New York City" for the city). Although I've voted for "(state)" myself, mainly for consistency with Washington and Georgia, I don't think "New York State" would be a terrible title either. And as RGloucester points out, it would be consistent with the "New York City" naming already in place. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As a Briton who has had experience living in the New York metropolitan area, but outside New York State, I can say with absolute certainty that "New York" does not by default mean the state in general American usage, anymore than it does in British usage. There is a wide range of potential permutations that are formulated on the basis of proximity and familiarity, and the only consistency amongst them is that meaning is determined by context. In an encylopaedia, where such context is not inherent, disambiguation in such a case should always be provided. Regardless, the relevant state university in New York State is called SUNY, not "New York State", quite possibly because of the fact that "New York State" is the usual name of the state when disambiguation is required. Likewise with CUNY, which serves New York City. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a survey, see User:Andrewa/US States, of what's currently at the various names of the form (US state name) State (such as Idaho State), and the results surprised even me. Yes, NYS is the exception... it's the only one that points directly to the state. There are 13 redlinks, and two DABS, one of which points to the state and some universities, the other (Nevada) is a two-way of two universities and (I find this fascinating) does not currently even mention the state. So I guess you could say that there are two that point to the state, one (Washington) through a DAB, but even then only two. All the rest are redirs to the relevant State University. That seems to support the idea that (US state name) State transformationally means a university to most people, and only that, to the point that where there is no such university, nobody has even thought to fix the redlink to make it point to the state (someone may do it now and maybe it's not a bad idea, but the point is made). I knew of Ohio State because it's so prominent in some past research interests of mine, and it is never called anything else in that context AFAIK. But the results of my survey surprised even me, and should I think count against New York State as an article title. It is seriously ambiguous for many English speakers. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I think New York and Washington actually are exceptions, because both share their name with a major city, and it's the city that comes to mind when you hear the name. Noboydy would say "Ohio State" because it would be redundant - Ohio is already meaning the state in almost all contexts. Similarly nobody says "Los Angeles City" but they do say "New York City" because the latter is ambiguous. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That argument doesn't make any sense to me. Just because "Ohio State" is ambiguous, doesn't mean that "New York State" is. If "New York State" isn't ambiguous, which it isn't, as nothing else is called "New York State", then "New York State" should be the title in line with WP:NATURAL and WP:UCN. If the government of New York State hasn't a problem with using it, neither should we. It has been proven to be the common name of the state when disambiguated, and we all know that no one writes "New York (state)". We don't assume an ambiguity on the basis of a clash that does not exist, we only disambiguate when there is one in actual fact. If a "New York State University" existed, and it was commonly called "New York State", and there was no "New York City", then your argument would make sense. However, this is not a situation that exists, and is hence irrelevant. There is no advantage to adding parentheses to a title that does not need them. It is unnatural, unconcise, against our policies, and doesn't do anything but create a title that one is less likely to type in the search box. These types of arguments often prevail in Wikipedia, but they are really very strange. I don't know why Wikipedia has to exist in a vacuum. Common usage is pretty clear on this matter. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree it's all a bit speculative, that's why I appealed to transformational grammar. Agree that there are some strange arguments. The appeal to the no consensus clause, for example, is essentially a circular argument, is it not? It is applied above to prove there is no consensus, but it assumes that there is no consensus, because otherwise the clause is inapplicable. Unfortunately there is a similar circularity in any attempt to argue against it, as the guideline now stands. When the smoke clears we may try to clarify this. Andrewa (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction... I missed California State, which does point to California. It's almost 2am here... Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. "New York State" is extremely rare, outside the US at least, and sounds like it could be a university, sports team, building, who knows what. Adding "US" to "(state)" is surely unnecessary. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) This proposal will give consistency like Washington (state), so I support it. epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rename to New York State

 * 1) New York State – Clearest choice when appearing alongside New York City and other search results. — JFG talk 04:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per WP:NATURAL – No reason to use parenthetical disambiguation. The permutation 'New York State' is in common usage in both New Yorks (state and city). Why wouldn't it be? It is easy, it matches New York City, and it eliminates any potential ambiguity.  RGloucester  — ☎ 21:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with this title, and it's my second choice after New York (state); it is used commonly enough that it shouldn't confuse anyone. (While the other two options are just awkward and artificial.) We certainly wouldn't break the Internet if we chose this title. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Second choice. This is natural language disambiguation and is how the offical state website refers to the state. older ≠ wiser 10:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)