User talk:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017

Where to now
If this draft is accepted, then we copy and paste (almost, I recommend that we re-expand the template using subst:requested move all over again just to prevent any unforeseen glitches) to talk:New York, and as many as are willing (and who agree 100% with the rationale) sign to support as proposers. Existing signatures would be removed and replaced by fresh ones.

, does this help? Does it look at all like what you have in mind?

I'm quite prepared to propose it, but I'd like to hear from you first, in fairness to you and also to get the best possible result. Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Rationale
This page was only intended as a braindump to help me to comment on the proposal that is preparing when it emerges... part of my homework while waiting.

But this section turned out exceptionally well IMO.

I don't think it needs expansion, and I don't think we can leave anything there out. There is much more that could be said and will be said I'm sure during the discussion, but keeping it very focussed at the start will help to keep it focussed to the end. I think. Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Order of the arguments
The order of the points made in the rationale was questioned (I forget where exactly and by whom) and I am only just getting around to replying.

The main section is of course the rationale itself.

The first argument ''1. Improved reader experience.'' comes before the second because the second refers back to the first.

Within this, the first bullet point ''Many readers search on New York wanting New York City, and load a large unwanted page as a result. The DAB loads in a far shorter time, particularly important for mobile and low bandwidth readers'' comes first because readers are our bottom line. The second ''Many mislinkings are created by editors who assume that the destination of a wikilink to New York is the city. Correcting these mislinkings occupies a large amount of editor time which would otherwise be available to improve the encyclopedia'' is about editors, not readers directly.

As stated above, the second argument ''2. Compliance to official policy and guidelines. It has been established that the state is not the primary topic of New York. This article title therefore cannot be used for the article on the state. (And it should be noted that the guidelines appear to be correct in this, see reason 1 above.)'' refers to the first. It is more logical for it to therefore follow it.

The final section ''Primary topic: It has been suggested that the primary topic of New York is New York City. A second RM is proposed after an interval of time still to be determined (but one year has been suggested) to determine this issue'' is not part of the rationale proper. But it is included in the rationale because it is an essential part of the proposal, and like the rationale should not be edited after the RM is opened. Andrewa (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion section
On reflection I have removed all content from the discussion section.


 * The section on Condorcet has been removed completely. I may add something similar when the discussion goes live, but I think it's better left out of the proposal itself.


 * The section foreshadowing a further RM on PT has been moved to the rationale. I'm of two minds on this but think on balance it should be part of the proposal.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Things to consider adding
That's certainly brief and to the point. I like the emphasis on providing the best destination for New York. That may be where we went wrong in last year's RM: we gave the impression that evicting the state article was our main aim, when in fact it was just a side effect of getting a better page onto that title.

I would consider adding: We can manage without the Refutation of counterarguments section but I'll keep my attempt handy as a cheat sheet for when the opposition arrives. Certes (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Link to PT RFC
 * Brief quote or summary of WP:Disambiguation and WP:ATDAB


 * Both good points, . I have actioned the first exactly as suggested.


 * The second may be also covered by wikilinks I've been adding. What do you think now?


 * Yes, keep all of our discussions close to hand, that one in particular, it's probably the best of the potential cheatsheets we have. I think (and hope) that we are now well armed with replies to previous oppose arguments. That's most of the reason I created Category:New York City and New York State move discussion pages and List of New York City and New York State move discussion page sections. Andrewa (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[


 * Thanks, that gives the reader some background. Although you've linked to another relevant part of the same page, I think WP:DABNAME is also worth adding.  That has the clearest statement I've seen in an established policy that The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term., i.e. no Foo (disambiguation) qualifier. Certes (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * But is that applicable to this move? We are not basing our argument on there being no primary topic for that term, because if we do, we lose some significant support. Andrewa (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Personally I'm neutral on whether NYC is PT.  I don't think I'd appreciate appreciated the subtlety that one can advocate a dab in preference to New York → New York City without necessarily opposing NYC as PT. Certes (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And that is a core problem. We need to sell the idea that even if NYC is the PT, the proposed move is still an improvement. That will be a matter for the RM discussion, but we need to make the RM as NYCisPT-friendly as possible to get that discussion off to the best possible start. Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree that this edit changes the sense in an important way... but not my reply. Both senses are important and valid observations (yes, I know you didn't intend the first sense but others are in exactly this position IMO).


 * This underlies the problems we have and can expect. While IMO it's not a Condorcet, it poses some of the same challenges, and fortunately has the same solution... only unlike a true Condorcet, in this case a resolution is possible, and this RM is designed to achieve just that. It's a bit unfair to Condorcet that his name is generally associated with a way in which voting (and !voting) systems can fail. His research was actually about how they can work, including in situations exactly like the one we have here! Andrewa (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Focus, balance and PT
This edit and the discussion that led to it are very relevant IMO.

As I said in reply there, I think that this is the most important single issue in framing this RM.

I think the balance is about right here already. Interested in other views of course.

My conviction is that we as nominators should neither support nor oppose the claim that NYC is the PT. This RM should claim only that Wikipedia will be improved by this proposed move, and seek consensus on that, not predicting either way how the foreshadowed second RM will go.

And I think this is very important. Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium
At the risk of batting for the opposition, is it fair to suggest a moratorium only if the RM succeeds? I wouldn't want us to be accused of holding a neverendum. Certes (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point. Done. Andrewa (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Support and Oppose sections
I have added these on the suggestion of. I can argue it both ways, but on balance I think it's better. As I said in reply, discussion really belongs in the Discussion section, but realistically this is unlikely. Andrewa (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, this is just a gentle reminder of the 4th bullet point under "When participating, please consider the following:" at WP:RM. A nominator is asked to refrain from a bulleted "Support" rationale.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  13:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I want to give others the option of co-nominating. And the instruction on not !voting support as nom is a request rather than a ruling, and is often violated without any criticism being voiced, ie ignored completely. I always turn a blind eye to support as nom !votes, and I've seen other admins even defend them, pointing out that it does no great harm - I may even have done so myself at times when such !votes were criticised and probably will in the future. I was assuming it could be ignored here too, and on reflection that's a very bad assumption.


 * What do you (and others) think of this version? The intention is that if I'm the only one who nominates (happy to be but prefer not), I'll just delete the new subsection and move my comment (minus the !vote) to the Discussion section. I think that's as vanilla as I can make it. Andrewa (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not all that big on nominator exclusion either – just wanted you to be prepared.
 * I don't know, your version is certainly more succinct and clear than the earlier version on the /Proposed move page. Just can't help wondering what is taking JFG so long with their draft. That editor is so great with proposals! Hope all is well with them!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  10:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And that preparation is much appreciated. In most RMs it would not matter. But in this one it was really leading with my chin. Good catch.
 * I share your concern about JFG, and your assessment. As I have said before, when most editors and I disagree, I look first for flaws in their thinking, but with JFG (and a few others) it is more productive to first look for the flaws in my own. Andrewa (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto, definitely.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Bullet points and explicit mention of the RfC
Referring to this draft (unfortunately a redlink in the post):


 * An August 2016 RfC has concluded that the State of New York cannot be the primary topic for the term "New York", due to the prominence of New York City being often called "New York", and to a lesser extent due to the existence of numerous other topics titled "New York", including songs, books, films, ships, sports teams, the New York metropolitan area, New York County, the historical Province of New York and a bunch of eponymous cities.
 * Consequently, the existing disambiguation page must be moved to the base title "New York", and the state article requires a qualifier to distinguish it from the city and other uses of the term. A July 2016 discussion on preferred qualifiers has shown overwhelming support for New York (state) vs New York State or State of New York as a destination title. The change will ease navigation and search for readers, and will bring consistency with similar cases such as Washington (state) vs Washington, D.C. and Georgia (U.S. state) vs Georgia (country).

observed

''FWIW I like the fact that it mentions the August RfC explicitly, rather than hiding it behind a piped link with some other text as yours does. It also conveys all the information within two sentences of prose, no bullet points. Beyond that, though, I'm happy with anything that is clear and mentions the key points!''

Both of these points could be incorporated into my draft, but interested to see 's latest draft before doing any more work on mine.

I can make some specific criticisms of the early one. I would add a link to the specific guideline that says the ambiguous title cannot be used. I'd also tidy up some of the grammar. Andrewa (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I also think it's overlinked, and that most of the examples would be better saved for discussion time. We only need the briefest of justification of claims in the rationale. Further evidence belongs in the replies if they are challenged. Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have had a go at not hiding the RfC, and removing the bullet points. I don't think it's an improvement. Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, the RfC mention was an improvement, but not the bullet point removal IMO.

The removal of the bullet points is now the only suggestion yet that I haven't adopted into the current version of the draft. Andrewa (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Another reason to think about
Talk:New York/Proposed move makes an excellent point.

This proposed move benefits those looking for NYS, not just those looking for NYC. It's so obvious when you look at the case presented there. Lateral thinking at its best. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't resist... added it. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Things to discuss during the NYRM
I've started a personal cheatsheet, see User talk:Andrewa/Things to discuss during the NYRM July 2017. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)