Talk:New York (state)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?

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.

---

Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"? — JFG ^talk 10:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Several long-wided discussions have taken place over 11 years to ascertain whether New York City or New York State should be titled "New York", or whether this should be a disambiguation page. The most recent debate has seen extensive participation and the appointed three-person panel has not delivered a common closing statement more than a month after the discussion was hatted. The question of primary topic was one of several arguments in the discussion, however it has not been answered conclusively: editors are divided on whether there is indeed a primary topic for the "New York" term, and if there is one, whether it is the state or the city. The goal of this RFC is to settle this question.

Feel free to refer to any argument previously developed, or dig out new ones, however please focus your answer on the question asked, Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?, answering Yes or No. This poll will hopefully bring extra information to facilitate the closing of the titling debate or fuel further discussions on the issue. — JFG ^talk 10:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notified Talk:New York City, Talk:New York (disambiguation), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. — JFG ^talk 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Procedural request: Given the recent and ongoing discussions about this issue, I strongly recommend that after the 30-day comment period runs out, this RFC should be closed by a totally uninvolved administrator who has not participated as discussant or as closer in any of the 2016 debates regarding the titling structure of New York-related articles (debates which started with Talk:New York#Requested move 9 June 2016). — JFG ^talk 08:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinions

Please answer Yes or No with a short rationale in this section.

• No NYC is the primary topic for the term, but I believe that the state article could be easily retitled as New York (State). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. Pppery (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME directly contradicts the idea that only official names count for potential article titles. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The official name of New York City is 'City of New York', not 'New York City'. Likewise, the official name of New York State is 'State of New York'. This argument makes no sense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. It seems likely the primary topic issue will be punted on at the move request. Since we name articles based on primary topic, we should establish this before the next move request. Given the arguments at the move request, it's obvious New York State isn't primary. I don't think the city is either. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. It simply and obviously fails both PT criteria, evidence and policy have both been cited to support this, and there has been no serious, evidence or policy-based suggestion otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. For many English speakers, "New York" refers to the city. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. NYC is the primary topic for NY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: Why? Pppery (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Long-term, wide-ranging significance. New York was a city before the colony bounded as we know it existed. New York was a world-significant city before the the colonies even unified to consider independence. New York has for hundreds of years been the most important entry point into the New World. There is more economic and social significant to whether you are a true New Yorker or a commuter from New Jersey, than if you are in upstate New York or across the border in Pennsylvania. US state borders have an academic federal political topicality, but in nearly every other respect the world's megacities are far more important subjects.

      That said, the reason the status quo is not a problem is because New York State and New York City are not independent of each other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

      For an article to be the primary topic, is not enough that it is highly important or significant; it needs to be much more important than other topics competing for the title. Do you consider New York city to be much more historically significant than New York state? Diego (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

      • Yes, because the name of the state is derivative of the city. That makes the city the default primary topic, and I don't think the state overcomes the significance of the city considering so many aspects. If the two topics were independent, neither derivative on the other, then there would be no primary topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Andrewa, is that an instruction, or a reference to something specific below? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Good question. It was intended to be read see my comment below, to keep the Opinions section as uncluttered as possible, but could equally be read as Please comment below, for the same reason... except that reading doesn't make much sense unless you read my comment below first... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• No – There is no primary topic. Both the city and state are called New York, one merely the 'City of New York', and the other the 'State of New York'. The significance of the city internationally is far too great to allow the state to take primary topic status. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• No. City has greater global importance and slightly more incoming links (even counting for State the links to [[New York]] that were meant for the city and the Doe was born in [[Anytown]], [[New York]] state links that are rarely followed). Probably no primary topic; if there is one it's the city. Certes (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Recognizing that TITLE policy requires that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject, and that Primary Topic states: "[t]here is no single criterion for defining a primary topic," New York has greater population and area than any other competing topic it is thus vastly more significant in real metrics (not feeling metrics) under ptopic. New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York, and the present city was created on January 1, 1898, under the laws of New York, and its area and people are more than encompassed by New York all making it more significant in law and in fact, under ptopic. Past discussions have shown that those who think of The City are thinking of New York County (aka, Manhattan) not New York City, thus New York City is less significant in their eyes, than New York County. Compare that, like Hillary Clinton, who may be the next president of the United States, was the junior Senator of New York, not the city, the electors of New York will select the President, not the city, thus again much more significant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment below. Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but where does WP:TITLE make such a thing as "requiring that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject"? The policy is very clear that the decision process is to be made by consensus, with a basis on how reliable sources discuss the topic; there's nothing in it limiting the characteristics of editors that may participate in the decision. If you're talking either about the Recognizability or WP:CONCISE criteria, in both cases they're talking about what is familiar to readers, not the editors making the decision. And I might say, the current title makes a poor work at fulfilling the naming criteria, as familiar readers will have problems determining which is the topic from the ambiguous name, which fails to have enough WP:PRECISION for that. Diego (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • You've made contradictory assertions, being familiar with the RS on the topic also is familiarity with the topic, and yes those familiar with the topic of New York, will know well the state. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, but then they will also be familiar with the sources for the city, so that criterion doesn't make the state stand out over the city in any way. Therefore that criterion contributes nothing towards the state being primary. Diego (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
        • That and the other things do make it stand out (eg. if, in fact, you wiped New York off the face of the earth, then NYC does not exist, but if you wiped the city off the face of the earth there is still New York) and familiarity with New York and/or New York City presents no cause for confusion - those who are familiar are by definition well aware. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Excuse me if I can't follow your reasoning at all. How is any of that related in any way with leading readers to the article they want to read, which is the focus of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline? And it still doesn't explain how knowing about the city and the state makes the latter more important in terms of familiarity with the topic, when the editor is equally aware of both. Diego (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Come now. I hope, your 'I don't understand' is not really you disagree. Focus on what primary topic and wp:title actually say and the real factual metrics regarding significance and educational value I already provided, and not your feelings about what you speculate others may want - your speculation about others is not policy, and is certainly no basis for consensus. "Hillary Clinton was the junior senator representing New York", is perfectly clear, natural and concise (it also references the Primary Topic by real measures of significance) and familiarity is the express requirement of WP:Title because it would make no sense for an actual encyclopedia to have those unfamiliar with the topics choose titles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
              • "Rudy Giuliani was the mayor of New York" is also perfectly clear, but it doesn't mean he was mayor of the state.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
                • He was the mayor of New York City, created in 1898 under the laws of New York. Clear, concise, natural. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
                  • No. Cornelius Lawrence was the first popularly elected Mayor of New York City after the law was changed in 1834 according to his article (Wikilink also as per that article). To say the city was created in 1898 (except in a very limited context) is confused, misleading and artificial. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • I'm sorry, if you are confused by the 1898 change that created the present New York City, and Giuliani was mayor of that city, but topic knowledge is important, and your confusion does not evidence it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
                      • The article New York City is not only about "the present New York City" (I assume you mean after the consolidation?), it covers the history of the location as well. Diego (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
                        • • As an encyclopedia article on New York City, its focus is the present city, but sure the subject of New York City is broader than those in your column seem to know, and New York is broader still. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
                            • And the focus of the current New York article is the state. And that is the whole problem. And suggestions to broaden its scope are being rejected, for no obvious and valid reason (the obvious but invalid reason being that some New-York-etc-ers want to continue to impose their local naming convention). Andrewa (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
                              • • The present New York encompasses the present New York City. That's not a problem that's just a fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
                                  • The present meaning of New York is exactly the topic under discussion. Calling your opinion on it a fact (as you have done elsewhere as well) doesn't make it one, and doesn't seem particularly helpful. You are as entitled to your opinions as any of us. But your insistence that they are fact makes building consensus rather difficult. Of course hindering consensus favours the oppose case, but I imagine you are aware of that. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
                                    • No. We are not discussing meaning, we are discussing topics, no wonder you reject facts: New York City is within New York, the City of New York is within the state, and real metrics show the state more significant in real terms than only the city -- similarly, the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma and the Republic of Ireland is in Ireland. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
                                      • Don't confuse them with facts, Alanscottwalker. Castncoot (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
                                        • See #Meaning, topics, facts below. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
              • What I don't understand is why an argument like "Clinton was the junior senator representing New York" makes you believe that the state is much more historically relevant (in a historic or educational way) than the city, when the city has a wealth of equivalent historical facts of its own, which similarly represent real measures of significance. I can only make sense of your assertion (i.e. that this is enough for the state to be the primary topic), if you intend it to mean that the historical facts regarding the state have inherently more importance than those regarding the city; in which case, yes, I do disagree.

              As for the city being located within the territory of the state, that has never been on its own a reason to consider the larger territory the primary one. Counterexamples like Madrid, Paris or Murcia show that the city within the homonimous territory may be the primary topic itself.

              And regarding what others may want, the text of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: "highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", so what others may want to read is definitely something to take into account. In either of the major aspects (primary by usage or long-term significance) the primary topic needs to be much more relevant than the other topics, which I simply don't see here. Diego (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

              • What's not to see, about Birth's in New York City are Births in New York, Universities in New York City are Universities in New York . . . cultural institutions, people, area, and on, and on, and on. As for the state's historical relevance, as state in the United States it is more historically relevant and powerful (presidential electors, laws, sovereignty, just a few examples), everyday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  That makes the state important, not the most important. Can't you really see the difference? Diego (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  That makes the state state primary topic by real metrics and the city secondary, the state encompasses the city. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  It does if but only if we apply some variant of the HLJC... which seems to have no significant support. Andrewa (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  No. All that is required is application of primary topic using real metrics to these articles, and an understanding of the facts about them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  So your position is that if you apply exactly the same real metrics to the city article, the city comes at a distant second place, because one place is physically located within the other? Diego (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  And these real metrics are ones chosen by you, which just happen to match those of the HLJC, and this understanding of the facts similarly being your opinion as to what is relevant, correct? And both of them contrary to the existing primary topic criteria, correct? How does that differ from the HLJC, except in name? Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  I was not suggesting that you were connected to that essay, just that it seems to perfectly reflect your view (you should check it out). But this suggests another way forward, see #Another way forward below. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  No. Except to acknowledge that US states are virtually always called by their common name in article titles (except for two with very different facts), my argument is solely concerned with these topics and their facts, New York and New York City, not other topics or general advice dealt with in an essay I have had nothing to do with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the city is New York City, and is just one (albeit big) component of New York State. There's much more to the State than the City. Peter Flass (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And there's much more to the city (specific culture, etc.) than the general characteristics of the state. All information at a New York City article is clearly not a subset of information that would be presented at a New York State article, which is what your argument seems to be implying by considering the city as a subset of the state. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely correct, Rob. Thanks for batting for our team in this good-natured softball game with that comment. That's the whole point here - would the CEO of a company ever micromanage? No, he would delegate the pesky details to his subordinates. And you'll find the same relationship between the New York State and United States articles. Castncoot (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Agree that put it very well, but what he says in no way supports your team. Andrewa (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. The state is not significantly more likely to be the sought topic "than all the other topics combined" (nor "much more likely" than the city), and its historic and educational relevance is comparable to that of New York City, which is also commonly referred to as "New York". Therefore it remains ambiguous what is the intended target when people link to or search for the term "New York". The opinions defending that the state is the primary topic for the term are largely a rehash of the Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion proposal, a suggested extension of WP:PTOPIC which didn't get traction. Diego (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• No city has greater global importance BlueSalix (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. As I stated in the move request, the topics are either of equal primacy, or perhaps NYC is even primary over the state. New York City is the world's number one global city, seat of the United Nations, foremost financial centre of the foremost economy in the world etc. etc. The state, on the other hand, is just a state. A big one, and an important one, but not *the* biggest or *the* most important in particular. That the city is in the state is incidental to this. The state doesn't acquire magical additional importance as an encyclopedic topic just because of that. See also Lima / Lima Province and Lagos / Lagos State for similar cases where the importance of a city supersedes or equals that of its containing province/state of the same name.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• No The City is eponymous for the State. Not the other way around. It almost never is in cases like this. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• No – Usage of the term "New York" is divided between the state and the city; this fact is widely documented and was acknowledged by both proponents and opponents of the move request. Some editors argue that the city is primary but data does not support this view: for example, natural traffic to the city article oscillates between 13,000 and 15,000 views a day while traffic to the state article stands between 6,000 and 8,000 views a day.[1] Even taking into account that the state traffic is artificially boosted by virtue of standing at the ambiguous "New York" title and being the target of links intended for the city, we still cannot say that the city is overwhelmingly dominant in reader interest. In terms of long-term significance, neither the city nor the state can be considered dominant either, as their respective histories are closely intermixed (although the modern worldwide angle would tilt this criterion towards the city). Therefore the inescapable conclusion is that the term "New York" does not have a primary topic. According to policy, it should be a disambiguation page, but the wikipedian community might also decide that the state article should stay here per WP:IAR. That is the subject for another debate. — JFG ^talk 08:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. In my experience, the term "New York" almost invariably refers to the city, to the point that the term "New York State" is employed when writers want to refer to the state rather than the city, the only exception being when specific locales in the state are being referred to, as in, for example, "Troy, New York" or "Albany, New York". Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I agree somewhat, but I propose a question to you. What does New York, New York ; or NY, NY refer to? Does it refer to the county in the city, i.e. Manhattan, or does it refer to the city in the state, i.e NYC? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, why would you refer to Manhattan, New York as New York, New York? The name of the place is Manhattan. I have always understood "New York, New York" to mean "New York City in New York State", if it's used for anything else, that is news to me. And indeed, it turns out that New York, New York redirects to New York City. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Manhattan is the County of New York. This is recognised by the New York, New York (disambiguation) page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Emir of Wikipedia, I can see that, but note that the dab page refers to this very much as a secondary meaning, the most widely understood meaning of the term "New York, New York" is New York City in New York State. Regardless, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think he's refering to the fact that "New York, NY", as a mailing address, refers only to Manhattan (that is, New York County). The other boroughs have other mailing addresses, either the borough name (i.e. "Bronx, NY") or neighborhood (i.e. "Flushing, NY"). In that regard, "New York, NY" is not a reference to the city as a whole. But unless you're sending a letter (or bill) to someone in the city, that's not a major deal. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• No (neither the state nor the city is the primary topic) I prefer a disambiguation page for New York or failing that keep as it is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• No Most uses of the term "New York" refer to "New York City". For that reason, a search in Wikipedia for "New York" should not go directly to New York state. It might lead to either New York City, which is the usual meaning of the term, or to a disambiguation page. If I had to guess, I would expect that the use of the term "New York" refers to the state less than 1% of the time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence for that? Because as noted throughout the extensive discussion here, it's no where near as one sided as that. oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • And, as also apparent from the discussion, some of us find the evidence already presented at least that one-sided. There is no doubt that some (perhaps even most) New-York-etc-ers have strong opinions as to what New York means, to the point that we can't even call them New Yorkers, and just as little doubt that to the rest of the English-speaking world it means something else. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      • To be absolutely blunt, I grow tired of the attitude apparent in your comments that somehow the people that live in the area are ignorant about the true meaning of the name; it is utterly arrogant and insulting. Simple logic dictates that they are more knowledgeable about the relationships and details than someone who lives on the other side of the world. The idea that the state government and boundaries are so minor as to be dismissed, which has been stated before, is an ignorant position. Knock it off, it doesn't help your arguments at all. oknazevad (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
• No The primary topic for "New York" is New York County (Manhattan), NOT the 5 boroughs combined. If you were going to Brooklyn or Queens, or Staten Island, you would say so. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  Largely true only within the city itself. Outside of the metro, Manhattan is never called "New York" except on postal envelopes. Powers ^T 15:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps just outside of the metro but in the US still. Manhattan is often referred to New York. I've heard people think Staten Island and Long Island are amusement parks.Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  I am not sure if Richard is completely right, but he is probably at least 90% right. NYC (which means the five boroughs) is the PT of NY as I said above, from far away where the topic of boroughs is not at issue. Someone from Staten Island is not being incorrect or misleading to say they are from NY, but yes, Manhattan Island competes strongly with NYC for PT for NY from a local perspective. I don't think it is a necessary distinction, but if push comes to shove I would give it to Richard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. I've avoided posting here because I felt this specific matter was well-discussed at the recent Move Request and I would still encourage anyone tasked with assessing consensus to review the arguments made by editors at that discussion, of which this RFC is a direct continuation. That said, this is a change from my previously stated position (not that I expect anyone to be keeping track), and it is a change based on the actual evidence presented. Particularly compelling was the breakdown of naming convention on other wikis, which did not demonstrate any clear dominance of either the city, nor the state, for an unqualified "New York". JFG has outlined a nice breakdown of traffic and linking patterns, demonstrating no clear PT at the base name, above. Additionally, in the course of fixing mis-links, BD2412 has presented a detailed analysis of their journey through many thousands of links, and their findings reveal that both the city and state have long-term significance, and that neither is overwhelmingly likely to be the intended meaning in any given situation. So, by no evidence-based standard is New York State the PT for "New York", but let's be clear: Neither is New York City (evidence for which has largely consisted of uncited assertions about what "most people" intend when they say "New York", which is barely better than discussing what they themselves first think of when they hear "New York"). - Antepenultimate (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. The names should specify New York State or New York City and also put New York on the disambiguation page. The state and city are different political entities, and I think it is best to specify which entity is being referenced in an encyclopedia. The words New York are vague, and could be interpreted with different meanings, so I think it best to be specific.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. "New York" refers to the city in most cases, and it is likely the term that most users want. Tom29739 ^[talk] 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. I just realized I haven't formally entered my opinion here, despite my extensive participation in this discussion. To make it clear without having to hunt the page: The state is not the primary topic. Neither is the city. There is no primary topic; they're about equal, as seen in the evidence gathered on this page and the prior move discussion. No one can actually properly say what most people want. The base title should be a disambiguation page. Not the state. Not the city. (The city article should not move at all.) oknazevad (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. Somehow this RFC slipped my notice until now. IMO, there is no primary topic or if there is one it is the city or perhaps the city's metropolitan area. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. It is plain to any objective eye that the title "New York" is an imprecise title that has no primary topic – not the state, not the city, not any part of the city such as Manhattan nor the Bronx, not the entire metropolitan area, although any one of these may be thought of as "New York" by some or many people, both locally and globally. If any one of these were to come even close to being the primary topic, it would be the city, not the state nor any of the others – the city. However I see no need to modify the city's article title, which is naturally disambiguated by "City". I see no need to do that because even the city, which is thought of by many in the world as simply "New York", is not the primary topic. So no, the state is not the primary topic. The imprecise title, "New York", does not have a primary topic and should be the title of the New York (disambiguation) page. Anything else goes strongly against this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines as set forth and described in several previous page-move discussions. And we have yet to see any policies or guidelines that support any other choice.  Paine  ^u/c 13:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. New York State is the primary topic.
  

Technical, i.e. Wikipedia-based, criteria(ion) supporting NYState as Primary Topic	Technical, i.e. Wikipedia-based, criteria(ion) supporting NYCity as Primary Topic
New York forks off NYC in section, via Regions of New York, but not vice versa	Usage (in pageview statistics and disambiguated links pointing to entity)
WikiProject New York > WikiProject NYC, via List of cities in New York
History section in New York incorporates NYC history, but not vice versa
Geography section supersedes Demographics section (in virtually all geographic articles in Wikipedia)
+/- HLJC - still at essay status but now acknowledged by move-support side to be legitimately usable toward building consensus

Castncoot (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Repeating from below, the State contains 50,000 square miles of settlements (including NYC and its people!) and roads, mountains and waterfalls, lakes and rivers, and forests and farms, all of which are WP:NOTABLE. NYC contains its 469 square miles. Geography covers both landscape and human impact. Demographics covers only human impact, a situation which could prompt delving into more subjective ("squishy," as you put it) metrics such as "fame", "importance", and "iconic value" if Demographics routinely superseded Geography (which you'll almost never see on Wikipedia, probably because that would defy the flow of naturally occurring human thought process); if that were the case (which it is not), one might make an argument that NYC could in fact be the primary topic. Castncoot (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Repeating from below, therefore, even though on the surface, on a purely quantitative basis, NYC has a 2: or 3: to 1 ratio per the usage metric, if one scratches beneath that superficial surface, one finds that on a qualitative basis, the State has more compelling evidence, again by purely encyclopedically driven, Wikipedia-based technical metrics, to be awarded primary topic status. Again, the caveat being that the move-oppose side isn't even looking at primary topic as the sine qua non criterion against moving. With a yawn, as a discussant, I reaffirm that there is no consensus that New York State is not the primary topic. Castncoot (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Where has HLJC been "acknowledged" and when will you be starting the move discussion to move the article on North/South America to America? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • On its talk page. By two of your compadres. And time must have passed me by when North/South America became a single legal jurisdiction. Castncoot (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What merger proposal? That's not even an issue. This New York topic article naturally covers all the people and all the places, history, and on and on, of New York. That is not an article merger - that's just the New York topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• As it was pointed below, the five points at the left of the table all refer to the same criterion (namely that the larger region should take precedence) and are not separate points. Since a primary topic needs to be (per policy) much more likely to be sought, historically or educationally significant than all the other alternatives combined, the table does not show that the state is primary. Diego (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all you misrepresent the chart. The first and third points are that the New York article covers New York City, not because it is larger (compare, Texas and Alaska are larger) but because it is in the topic. The second point has nothing to do with larger, it has to do with an on Wikipedia organization that recognizes the fact that New York City is in New York. The Fourth point is a statement of geography and demographics, and according to it is has to do with qualitative issues. The fifth is some essay they have apparently written. These things do have to do with significance of New York, just as in the English language the primary definition in reliable source dictionaries is New York, yes the state, and in reliable source encyclopedia the the topic of New York is under the title New York, yes the state. To be a reliable source, one should follow them, according to policy. As for your eliding of ptopic into a mish-mash, the policy very much values such evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. I'm of the opinion that NYC is the primary topic for "New York", but it's clear that the state is not the primary topic unless you use the convoluted criteria of higher-level jurisdiction, which has been shown to repeatedly break down and lead to absurd results in cases like this where the lower-level jurisdiction is more prominent/important in a global/historical context. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Patar knight: I just want to quote you the lead of the criteria of higher-level jurisdiction, a proposed criterion that may help to determine a primary topic. It is both on a proposal and a possible helping tool, not a definitive criterion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am firmly of the opinion that HLJC is only useful in cases where the the two jurisdictions involved are run-of-the-mill and otherwise not particularly notable. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. Globally, among English speakers, New York refers to the city. WP:BIAS does not change that. SSTflyer 10:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Discussion about the question

Feel free to bring up longer statements about the issue at hand here.

From the !votes above: Yes New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. Interesting logic. This RfC asks a simple question, and this supposed !vote does not even try to answer it, despite the Yes it claims. It's fair enough (but wrong IMO) to claim that the question is irrelevant. But that's not what is being asked here. Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The city article is clearly the primary topic for New York City. That fact does not disqualify the article from also being the primary topic for other titles such as Nueva York, The City So Nice They Named It Twice and possibly New York. Certes (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Certes: The fact that there are various other redirects to the city are irrelevant. There are no other articles competing for the titles you mentioned. There is {obviously} another article competing for the name New York. Pppery (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Then NYC is a better example, as it has several other meanings. But let's not get too engrossed in specific examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF. My point was that one article may be the primary topic of multiple titles. Certes (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From the !votes above: No. For many English speakers, "New York" refers to the city. This is an entirely valid rationale, but even so I preach caution. Of course, if it's true that NYC is the primary topic (and I agree that it is) , then NYS can't be. But the question here is just whether NYS is the primary topic. If we begin to discuss in addition whether NYC is the primary topic, we open the possibility of creating a Condorcet paradox, and one of the RM panel specifically raised this possibility in their initial comments. What they did not say is that while a Condorcet is in theory unresolvable, in practice all systems do resolve it, including our own RM process and specifically the RM on which they were and are adjuducating. They have since (thankfully) stated that the possibility of a Condorcet did not influence their thinking, but in view of the circles in which the oppose vote has been allowed to lead us, I preach caution in bringing any possibility of a three-way decision into the poll above. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

From the survey above: No. NYC is the primary topic for NY. Please note the can of worms this opened. Far better to focus on the question which was asked, as I said above. Andrewa (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a specific question of whether New York State is the primary topic, which would justify its current location if it were. Focusing on NYC vs. no primary topic at this stage is immaterial. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is far from immaterial. It is the sort of muddy thinking that was allowed to create this mess in the first place, and is now being allowed to prolong it. It should never have been a big deal. WP:Creed#15. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From the poll above: Recognizing that TITLE policy requires that those choosing a title be familiar with the subject, and that Primary Topic states: "[t]here is no single criterion for defining a primary topic," New York has greater population and area than any other competing topic it is thus vastly more significant in real metrics (not feeling metrics) under ptopic. New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York, and the present city was created on January 1, 1898, under the laws of New York, and its area and people are more than encompassed by New York all making it more significant in law and in fact, under ptopic. Past discussions have shown that those who think of The City are thinking of New York County (aka, Manhattan) not New York City, thus New York City is less significant in their eyes, than New York County. Compare that, like Hillary Clinton, who may be the next president of the United States, was the junior Senator of New York, not the city, the electors of New York will select the President, not the city, thus again much more significant.

This starts off with an error of fact... there's no such requirement in WP:AT. Article titles, like all of Wikipedia, belong to the whole community. We are certainly, all of us, urged to consult reliable sources, which hopefully are familiar with the subject.

But the rest is excellent! A comprehensive list of the reasons that NYS could claim to be PT, by significance, by usage and by other criteria... even the HLJC gets mentioned although not by name.

I commend it to all !voters. The question is of course, do any or all of these arguments stand up against the many arguments that NYS is not the PT?

Significant progress. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The metrics that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC favor are those concerning what readers may be looking for and want to learn, not how big, famous or legal the topic is; WP:DISAMBIGUATION is primarily about easing navigation for our readership, not about placing topics that look "important" at prominent places. If those looking for New York may be thinking indistinctly about the state, the county, the municipality or the metropolitan area, that's actually an argument against having one of them dominate over the others.

New York City would not exist in law or in fact without New York That is hard to believe when the city came first, and the state afterwards. Diego (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And there are equally obvious flaws in all of the arguments presented there. It speaks for itself. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The City of today was created in 1898, under the laws of New York, and of course physical reality just means that the existence of the city is dependent on New York, whereas if the city was wiped of the face of the earth New York would still exist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

And that's typical of the gymnastics required to mount any argument at all in support of NYS as PT. Following the link above I find In 1664, unable to summon any significant resistance, Stuyvesant surrendered New Amsterdam to English troops... The English promptly renamed the fledgling city "New York" after the Duke of York... The transfer was confirmed in 1667 by the Treaty of Breda,... To me it seems a colossal stretch to say that the city was created in 1898. Not to you?

Yes, nuke the whole of NYC to a peaceful blue glow and some of NYS might in theory survive, while if the fireball ate up the whole of NYS then of course NYC would go too. Another gymnastic.

This drastic action is possibly being contemplated by some Wikipedians. Such a misguided and deplorable act is clearly against Official Wikipedia Policy and could easily result in a topic ban. But more important, I'm afraid it would not help much if at all. Regardless of the exact scope of destruction achieved, NYS still wouldn't have a clear claim to being the PT, as NYC would still be notable enough for an article, like Pompeii and Herculaneum. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That you think physical reality is mental gymnastics and deplorable is bizarre, that you don't like normal logic like 1 exists with 2, but 2 does not exist without 1, is to be rejected. And your history is more than partial, you use it misleadingly, as the entire province was named New York. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That you think that I think any of those things is possibly even more bizarre. Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The State was named after the City. Not the other way around. When people all over the world hear the word "New York" the first thing they think about is not the entity of which Albany is the Capitol, but of the City! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2016

No. When the province was named New York by England (there was already a New England to its north),there were a few Dutch settlements there, one was the City of New Netherlands, in the Dutch New Netherlands, the now English New York renamed the town its city, as it was no longer in New Netherlands, it was in New York (it also renamed Orange, Albany). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact the more I read your reply, the less sense it makes. You say I think mental gymnastics are deplorable. They may well be, but I didn't say that. You seem to have only skimmed what I did say.

What I said was that to nuke the whole of NYC to a peaceful blue glow (a la Fail Safe for instance) would be a misguided and deplorable act and clearly against Official Wikipedia Policy and could easily result in a topic ban. You disagree? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not my fault you write so much nonsense at length. Why let physical reality get in the way of your feelings. The fact is the City of New York would not exist without New York where it exists. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the fact is the City of New York would not exist without New York where it exists (your emphasis removed). Not quite sure where you think I denied this. Noting that you have not replied to my previous requests for evidence, I'm guessing that you made this up too. Is that unfair?

Agree that any nonsense I write is not your fault. I will let others judge which of us is in touch with reality rather than just feelings. It's a good question. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:TITLEVAR

My attention has only just been drawn to the policy at WP:TITLEVAR. I don't know how I missed it before, I can only guess that I was too busy analysing bizarre and illogical arguments to properly check whether there were any valid ones opposing the move, and specifically, supporting the claim of NYS to be PT. In my defense, nobody else seems to have spotted this either, even the post that finally stirred the brainwaves didn't mention it explicitly. And it is kind of buried as a subsection of WP:AT#English-language titles, and none of the policies/guidelines on disambiguation link to it as far as I can see.

Is anyone, at this late date, interested in discussing this? It seems to me to be exactly what we should have been discussing all along, and might even lead to a consensus decision. Or do we just save it for 2017 or 2022?

Just in case anyone is interested, here are some issues as I see them:

• WP:TITLEVAR is about national varieties of English.
  • There seems no doubt that New Yorkers (in some sense of the term, let's not go back there) tend to think of the state as primary (while most of the world allegedly thinks of the city). But is this true of all Americans, or is it a more localised thing? What does a Californian or a Dallasite tend to think?
  • Even if it turns out that it's not true of all Americans, is it valid to extend the principle to smaller linguistic communities, and to this rather unique one in particular?
• Does WP:TITLEVAR apply to disambiguators, or only to base titles? (And if it applies to disambiguators, shouldn't it be at least mentioned in one of the policies/guidelines on disambiguation? Or is it and I missed that too?)
• WP:TITLEVAR reads in part Very rarely, a form that is less common locally is chosen because it is more intelligible to English-speaking readers worldwide. Might this be the appropriate action here?

I should I think disclose that I do have a qualification in language survey, a subdiscipline of sociolinguistics. (Which made the accusation a while back that I hadn't noticed how the people of Paris or Zurich spoke of their city a little bit strange... this was both of practical interest to me as a stranger to the area needing to get my bearings, and of personal curiousity.) I should perhaps have said this earlier, to explain my interest in the subpoll I attempted.

Anyway, anyone interested? Comments? Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that Disambiguation not only applies to the current article titles, it also takes into account how people commonly call the topics of the articles even if the name is not the same as the article title. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC takes into account "the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", it doesn't concern itself with how the locals call it. In short, WP:TITLEVAR was not discussed earlier because it has little relevance to disambiguating between two articles which are commonly called with the same name.

As long as people from around the world call the city "New York", there will be a need to apply disambiguation, whether or not that string is used as the base title of the article. Even if the city article is not called New York (city), it doesn't automatically mean that New York (state) is the primary topic for the term "New York".

WP:TITLEVAR might be a good argument to prefer New York (state) over New York State, though the (state) parenthetical disambiguator falls under WP:Disambiguation, not WP:Article titles. Diego (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

All very good and relevant points IMO.

I don't agree that disambiguation is not under WP:AT, of which WP:AT#Disambiguation is a section too. WP:AT is a policy, and refers to WP:Disambiguation which is an editing guideline. I can't see anywhere that suggests that WP:AT is just about base name, I think it's about article title overall. Happy to be proved wrong, and totally agree it's relevant.

And I don't agree that there was a ever reason not to refer to WP:TITLEVAR as an important part of these discussions. I think we all either just missed it, or missed its implications. It's right on the article title policy page, and even if it's not directly applicable (about which I'm not quite sure either way right now), it has the backing of a strong consensus (and I'm guessing a longstanding one but have not checked the page and talk page history).

Its principles should be at least considered. It may turn out that they are not entirely consistent with other policies and guidelines. They were all, after all, written by people just like us. Andrewa (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not as much that DAB is not part of TITLE, as it is that TITLEVAR is not the relevant part of the policy to apply. Unless you think that people from New York don't frequently use that name for the city, the two articles need to be disambiguated even with respect to how the locals call them. Diego (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

But if DAB is part of TITLE (your shorthand), as I believe, then this section is relevant. Agree other sections may be more relevant. That's what we should have discussed long ago IMO. Better late than never.

Agree that disambiguation is necessary. The question is just how best do it. Andrewa (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Meaning, topics, facts

From #Opinions above:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No. We are not discussing meaning, we are discussing topics, no wonder you reject facts: New York City is within New York, the City of New York is within the state, and real metrics show the state more significant in real terms than only the city -- similarly, the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma and the Republic of Ireland is in Ireland. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
                                      • Don't confuse them with facts, Alanscottwalker. Castncoot (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is so fundamental it needs its own section. Also, it's cluttering the opinions section to the point of making it hard to see the !votes.

It's perhaps ironical to find it in that section. The matter of real metrics seems to be very much one of opinion! Yes, it is very important to distinguish fact from opinion.

But more important, note that primary meaning and primary topic both redirect to exactly the same place (that is a fact). I think this is very relevant (that is an opinion).

I'm even of the opinion that, if I ever again teach semantics, I might use We are not discussing meaning, we are discussing topics, as an example of utter nonsense. I think that even at an undergraduate level, it might well bring down the house (that is an opinion).

I don't see how you expect to discuss topics without discussing meaning. I think it's quite hilarious (that is an opinion) that you want to do so (that is a fact).

I do not dispute that the City of New York is within the state (your emphasis removed), or the Republic of Ireland is in Ireland. Those are facts (although some would have a problem with the Ireland example, I don't). There is a problem with saying New York City is within New York in that it begs the question and is arguably ambiguous, but agree that New York City is within New York State. That is a fact. And there is a problem with the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma, it's not clear to me whether that really expresses a fact either, for several reasons that we can explore if you like.

I'm skeptical that I have ever rejected those particular facts, but if so, this is a wiki (that is a fact) so there should be evidence. Can you produce any? I don't think so, but that is an opinion. But if you fail to do so, I will take that as itself evidence that you don't have any, as I think will anyone else still reading (that is an opinion).

Anyone still confused? Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Just with your not accepting the fact "the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma". Oklahoma City is the subject of the first link, and it is capital of the state of Oklahoma, the subject of the second link. And, yes, Oklahoma City is always called Oklahoma City, absolutely never just Oklahoma. That's a fact. oknazevad (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I said we could explore the problems with that statement if anyone liked. Happy to do so.

First, agree that Oklahoma City is the subject of the first link, and it is capital of the state of Oklahoma, the subject of the second link. And, yes, Oklahoma City is always called Oklahoma City, absolutely never just Oklahoma. That's a fact. (your emphasis removed) No problems anywhere with that.

But there is a possible problem with "the topic of Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma". Oklahoma City is in Oklahoma, certainly. But we cannot from that conclude that "the topic of Oklahoma City is in the topic of Oklahoma", as you appear to have done. That's a different question, even in the case of Oklahoma City. And the difference is far more important in the case of New York City.

When we mix terms like this, some of them conceptual and some of them physical, we invite all sorts of logical errors. Ones of exactly the sort User:Alanscottwalker makes below and above, and which so troubled Frege.

Thank you for the invitation to explore this further. It's an important issue, and can be a tricky one. I but preach caution. Andrewa (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how one can say that coverage of the capital and/or largest city of a state isn't part of the coverage of the state. Are there aspects of the coverage of the city that are unique within the state? Sure, that's why the city gets its own article. But everything said about the state in that article also applies to the city as well, as the city is geographically and politically a subunit of the state. Conversely, the city, has a major impact on the state as a whole because of its political significance. Now I don't agree with the idea that the state is inherently more important than the city (i.e. WP:HLJC), and this is not an argument about that, but it is impossible to completely divorce the topic of the city from the topic of the state. So yes, the topic of Oklahoma City is in the topic of Oklahoma. The state contains the city and the city has a major effect on the state. oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Very well put... mostly! I certainly didn't mean to say that coverage of the capital and/or largest city of a state isn't part of the coverage of the state. (Just for non-NY-etc-ers, note that the capital of NYS is not NYC. And just for NY-etc-ers, neither of us is saying that it is!)

If we somehow decided that NYC was non-notable but NYS was, we would still cover NYC as a section of the NYS article. And vice versa. As Wikipedia (and most if not all other general encyclopedias) scopes articles, there is no hierarchical relationship between the two topics.

I think that is an extremely important point. Does my (newly developed, thank you for stimulating it) understanding of it resonate? Andrewa (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there's mo hierarchical relationship at all. Certainly, there's something to the idea that one is not inherently more primary to the other, but that doesn't mean that one isn't to some extent inherently subordinate to the other. Cities are in some ways inherently subtopics of the state (and country) where they are located. But sometimes the city has an outsize importance beyond its state/country. In short, nothing can be categorically said that one is primary over the other, hence the rejection of HLJC. But that does not mean we treat the state as a mere side topic inferior to the city.

In short, to summarize all my positions, just to make everything clear. There is no primary topic; neither the state nor the city is the sole, dominant primary meaning of the undisambiguated term "New York". The state should be moved to "New York (state)", as the parenthetical will allow for appropriate piping of links where needed. "New York" should point to/become the title of the existing disambiguation page; the draft high-level concept article is needlessly redundant and unclear, if well meaning. People don't typically use plain "New York" to refer to the metro area as a whole, as major parts of it are not in New York (city or state) and people from those other states are not called "New Yorkers" (because they're not residents of New York). And the one position I will not bend on at all, the city should remain at "New York City"; there is absolutely no reason to move it from that very commonly used, naturally disambiguated title. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and we have a draft at Draft:New York (overview) which was previously known as Draft:New York. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That is precisely the overview article we don't need. Firstly, the tortured attempt to call New York a "locality" is poor; New York State is too large for such a term. Indeed, it reads like an attempt to find the right word when there is no right word because what is being described is made up. Secondly, as I've said repeatedly, the statement "New York can also refer to New York metropolitan area" is incorrect in all except an exceedingly minority usage; the very reason people refer to the metro area is to include areas quite distinct from the city but still nearby and dependent on it. Really, there's no need for anything other than the disambiguation page, and the draft, as well meaning as the editors were, should be abandoned. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So what do you propose? That New York redirects to the disambiguation page? I think that would clearly violate Wikipedia conventions and consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree, but surely it would be an improvement? Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

In what way does having an ambiguous title point to a disambiguation page violate Wikipedia guidelines? That makes no sense to me whatsoever, truly. There is nothing wrong with stating flatly that "New York" is ambiguous and has no single primary meaning. Certainly it is clear that we cannot agree on a primary meaning, and that the statistics (presented by User:BD2412 elsewhere on this page) back up that the city and state are both fairly comparable in number of links. Its an ambiguous term, there's no two ways about it. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page... (my emphasis) This is repeated in other guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see what harm the overview article would do. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy. And it is redundant. We already have a disambiguation page. And this idea that there is some idea of "New York" that isn't the city or the stae doesn't jibe with the way people actually describe the place. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem, and I don't think there's any policy or guideline that might make it one. But happy to be proved wrong, and is it the only problem? Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with most of this, and have no strong objection to any of it. But the main issue always was and still is, should the NYS article be at the base name? And I still can't see any problem to assessing a strong consensus that it should not be. What am I missing?

The result of failing to focus on this is that a situation continues to exist that is quite frankly ridiculous to the rest of the world. It would be good to fix it! Andrewa (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That's for the closers of the RM to decide. We already had the discussion and put it in their hands, by consensus. And while it may seem ridiculous to you, it's always a bad idea to try to speak for others. So while this discussion has been interesting, it may very well be time for all of us to WP:DROPTHESTICK and let it go for now. Again, as I've said before, there is WP:NODEADLINE, and no one is suffering real harm from this while we wait for the close. Wikipedia is just an on-line encyclopedia, it is not life or death. Some perspective is needed here. oknazevad (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree on perspective etc.. But I stand by my opinion on how this looks to the rest of the world! And remembering that not only the misnamed article, but also the naming conventions which we are patently ignoring, and this discussion, is freely available on the web, long-term in the case of the talk pages and page histories... It's a bit frightening. But the world and Wikipedia will both survive. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You are quite confused. It's as if you do not know where you are, see, WP:NOTDICT. You may want to go to Wikitionary. As an encyclopedia, we are not a dictionary explicating meaning, we are exploring topics encyclopedically. The article which talk page you are on, our encyclopedic topic of New York, discusses New York City at length, as well as other things, because that is how one writes an encyclopedia article on New York, which arises from the fact that the City of New York is within the state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you found my link to Wiktionary unhelpful, but I think you are a mite confused yourself. Wikipedia articles and other pages frequently link to Wiktionary, that's what the Wikt shortcut is for. Do all the other writers who do this not know where they are too? It should not be a problem.

Agree that As an encyclopedia, we are not a dictionary explicating meaning, we are exploring topics encyclopedically. Exactly!

... The article which talk page you are on, our encyclopedic topic of New York, discusses New York City at length, as well as other things... Sort of. I'd say The article on whose talk page you are, on our encyclopedic topic of New York, describes New York City at length,..., but I think that's exactly what you mean. Is it?

...because that is how one writes an encyclopedia article on New York, which arises from the fact that the City of New York is within the state. (your emphasis removed and mine added) No. The article topics are not as simply related as you (and the HLJC again) would have us believe. Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The topics are not simply related, the relationship in fact is patent. But perhaps you know nothing of the topics. (As for your link to wikitionary, it just was irrelevant not confusing but if you want to write a dictionary go to wikitionary, and leave construction of more complex context to others.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Another hint that the State is the primary topic, although, again, one should not place WP:UNDUE weight on this issue: Look at New York, New York City, Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Texas, Houston, Berlin (the latter both a city and a state), or in fact almost any other state or major city article - Geography is consistently listed as a higher-precedence topic compared to Demographics. This suggests that the natural human thought flow of importance, precedence, priority – whatever term you want to use for this metric – puts the physical lansdscape – which includes both rural and urban landscapes – ahead of the "human impact" element of those landscapes. Therein, HLJR intuitively vibes consistently with our natural neurobiological rhythms, i.e., given that the State completely contains the City. Castncoot (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the History section precedes all by default, because one obviously must describe how and when a particular geographic entity was formed in the first place before proceeding any further. And even in this History section, the State article will describe some aspect(s) of the City's history, but not vice versa. Castncoot (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with most of this, it is oversimplified and not particularly relevant IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting and relevant points. Thank you! Not convinced that they stand up against the usage and significance criteria, but... as with the HLJC... it's reasonable to argue that in this case they should. Or even that they should be incorporated into WP:PT. But I don't think we'll get consensus for either that or their application to this case. I could be wrong! Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And again I must point out, User:Alanscottwalker, that just because I linked to a dictionary doesn't mean I'm writing one. Wikipedians do it often, and I'm afraid I've done it again below. I find it helpful sometimes. Not you?

But more important, please criticise my arguments rather than attacking my right to make them. I'm surprised you (and others) are getting away with as much of this as you are, but it may not last forever. Suggest you (re?)read WP:NPA.

Disagree that the relationship is wikt:patent. And I'm not linking to annoy you. I'm fascinated to know just which meaning of patent you intended! None of them seem applicable to me, as I would have thought the discussion to date makes (;-> patent. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

PS you might like to join in the discussion that I and Oknazevad are having above, which is exploring exactly this relationship. Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That a thing is the sum of its parts is patent. Factually so, here. (BTW. I point out again your linking was irrelevant to any point I made, so link away.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. That a thing is the sum of its parts is, in general, false. But it does depend on what you mean by sum. Try this experiment: Go to a wrecking yard and attempt to drive a disassembled car. Report back with your results. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you can't see the connection, but perhaps others will, and glad to now have your permission to link to wikt. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Easy, put it in a truck and drive the whole sum of a disassembled car away. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So now let's analyze only the technical metrics (i.e., Wikipedia-based) involving criteria to determine primary topic, rather than looking at subjective, culturally iconic metrics such as "fame" (which would be reflected in the technical metric of usage anyway); with the caveat that primary topic in turn represents but one criterion towards developing a consensus about moving, for which no consensus has ever been reached in this article title's roughly 14- or 15-year history. Perhaps here's why move supporters have never been able to successfully leverage their sole attempted argument successfully:

Technical, i.e. Wikipedia-based, criteria(ion) supporting NYState as Primary Topic	Technical, i.e. Wikipedia-based, criteria(ion) supporting NYCity as Primary Topic
New York forks off NYC in section, via Regions of New York, but not vice versa	Usage (in pageview statistics and disambiguated links pointing to entity)
WikiProject New York > WikiProject NYC, via List of cities in New York
History section in New York incorporates NYC history, but not vice versa
Geography section supersedes Demographics section (in virtually all geographic articles in Wikipedia)
+/- HLJC - still at essay status but now acknowledged by move-support side to be legitimately usable toward building consensus

Castncoot (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Therefore, even though on the surface, on a purely quantitative basis, NYC has a 2: or 3: to 1 ratio per the usage metric, if one scratches beneath that superficial surface, one finds that on a qualitative basis, the State has more compelling evidence, again by purely encyclopedically driven, Wikipedia-based technical metrics, to be awarded primary topic status. Again, the caveat being that the move-oppose side isn't even looking at primary topic as the sine qua non criterion against moving. Castncoot (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the uncalled for slur against those who disagree with you, I think this is an excellent contribution. Not the whole story, but a good start.

The main problem is, such a table doesn't belong on a talk page. Signing edits to it will be problematical, even for yourself. Suggest create either a project page or user page to develop it, and then copy it across. Andrewa (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Slur?? No idea what you're talking about. And move the table? No, that's ridiculous. That happened to be my comment, and it was the only way I could express it, just like someone has posted a diagram of Los Angeles below. I have no intention of editing it, and nobody else has the right to edit it, either. Castncoot (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In that case I don't think it likely that it will achieve anything... a pity. Agree that they should not edit your comment, that was my point. But also bear in mind that all pages and all edits belong to the project and are released under our copyleft licence. So if someone wants to copy your table and complete or otherwise improve it, you have already given permission for that. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of Geography superseding Demographics. The other entries on the left of the table rephrase the single argument that NYS is bigger than and includes NYC. Size does not equate to importance. This debate contains plenty of counter-examples where a search term correctly takes the reader to the smaller entity or to a disambiguation page. Certes (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Importance" is not a concept in policy (too squishy, perhaps). I am not sure what is meant by that entry in the table (perhaps it can be clarified by the author?) because there are vastly more demographics which favor the wider and broader topic of New York than only the City in significant numbers, geography, history, etc. too. And significantly more information value in the wider topic article, with an overview of essential information on New York City, too. As someone wrote below, a significant number of articles mention the wider topic in politics, history, roads, geographic features, multiple cities, and places, people, etc. Moreover, there are counter examples to the ones you have mentioned, which are mentioned in this debate, and Wikipedia, virtually always uses the common name for the state (except in two outliers, which have vastly different facts). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What I meant, Alanscottwalker is that the State contains 50,000 square miles of settlements (including NYC and its people!) and roads, mountains and waterfalls, lakes and rivers, and forests and farms, all of which are WP:NOTABLE. NYC contains its 469 square miles. Geography covers both landscape and human impact. Demographics covers only human impact, a situation which could prompt delving into more subjective ("squishy," as you put it) metrics such as "fame", "importance", and "iconic value" if Demographics routinely superseded Geography (which you'll almost never see on Wikipedia, probably because that would defy the flow of naturally occurring human thought process); if that were the case (which it is not), one might make an argument that NYC could in fact be the primary topic. Castncoot (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. I am just thinking of demographics in terms of population and many of their individual characteristics and the New York article covers it quantitatively and qualitatively - all the people of New York - a life is a significant life, human geography if you will. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And the State has 20 million of them. Castncoot (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Procedural comments

Any comments about the process should go here.

• Good lord just give it a break guys. Toa Nidhiki05 10:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not even going to !vote here, and anyway I've already answered this during the move request discussion, as any interested editor could have. This RfC was started in bad faith strictly to subvert the process of the move request adjudication, amidst this process, and directly in violation of the spirit and perhaps letter of what admin panelist Newyorkbrad has recommended and/or instructed, simply to get around a likely moratorium on this topic. This RfC should be withdrawn immediately, as the time for this would have been while the move request discussion was ongoing. Please withdraw this RfC. Castncoot (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Castncoot, would you agree to participate in a dispute resolution process? Your continuous calls to stifle any kind of discussion and repeated accusations of bad faith are starting to become seen as very bad form. If you don't agree to this RfC, there must be some way that you find acceptable to discuss other people's concerns, so that we can settle the question. Diego (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No. And the direct answer to this is simple. As I've already pointed out, this was already discussed extensively during the move request discussion process. You and others had all the time in the world to malleate the topic of primary topic in any which way you wanted, as you are directly tying this to the move request, while the oppose side argued that it was not the determinant factor anyway. You don't get a second bite at the apple when things aren't going your way. The move request discussion is now closed, and the panel will decide how much weight, if any, this (and any other move request-related topic either favoring or disfavoring a move, by the way) will have in coming up with a composite decision. And then all of these topics will need to be subjected to a common moratorium along with any subsequent move discussion itself. Would you simply wipe up an oil spill, or would you also plug up holes from the oil tanker? Castncoot (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And what if the crew of the leaking tanker were to try to stop you by denying there was any leak? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is sad and surprising that we are even discussing this while the RM is in process, but reasonable in the circumstances. I stated early in the process of the current RM that NYS fails both PT criteria and there has subsequently been no serious, evidence or policy-based attempt to dispute this.

However we are now in the position that one of the panel of three has expressed the opinion that there is consensus that NYS is not the PT, but the other two seem to see no consensus on this. Worse, their statements are unclear even on whether this consensus exists. These are simple and relevant questions, surely?

And against this background, User:Castncoot is vigorously proposing that all discussion relevant to this question should be banned for a period of three and preferably six years. I have consistently supported a moratorium that is well scoped and of reasonable length, and I have yet to hear any opposition to it. But his proposal is neither.

So the neatest thing now is to have this particular discussion immediately (and, in hindsight, belatedly). It would have been far better to have this RfC before the latest RM, but that was not the decision of the latest MR.

It is a simple, relevant and timely question, and there is no good reason that it should not or cannot be quickly resolved. Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, enough already, and very improper, so I'll abstain a vote. The question is loaded as well. If you want to be neutral, you'd ask "what is the primary topic?" instead of asking if it's New York state or not. Reminds me of a comment on the RM about such loaded statements and their negative consequences likely in this case. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, very improper and shameful because it is NOT timely, regardless of the way the question could be phrased. This conversation should and could have been formed only by Newyorkbrad or perhaps BD2412, both of whom had clearly indicated in somewhat different ways that the time for further comment on the substance of the move request discussion or its potential justifications had expired; and in my opinion, this is anarchy. I can think of other RfC questions here that would skew to disfavor a move, but I am holding back. I also abstain from a vote on this question for this very reason; people know what I have stated in the move request discussion, as they know what others have already stated as well. Therefore, this particular discussion is rendered moot. Castncoot (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• I also tend to agree that it is inappropriate to begin a new discussion at this time. It feels like rushing to get something new underway before the closing panel has the chance to speak on a moratorium, which has been proposed by a number of participants. I have been through this mill before. I proposed to move "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton", the proposal failed, and rather than trying to restart the discussion in a different venue, I respected the moratorium and spent that period gathering a substantial body of evidence - thousands of examples - demonstrating the primary topic title. The next move request succeeded. bd2412 T 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This can't be called "rushing" as the discussion was closed for over a month now and the panelists have not come to a common conclusion yet. I started this RFC to help settle a key question about which editors on both sides and one panelist have publicly requested clarification, so I feel legitimate to take the pulse of the community on this narrowly-formulated finding of fact. There is no prejudice in my question about the eventual page move; the community could very well decide that other arguments than WP:PTOPIC should prevail in this particular case. But at least it will be a fully-informed decision. — JFG ^talk 03:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: This isn't a move request, though; it's the gathering of evidence that the community considers NYS not to be primary topic. The closers have had plenty of chance to comment. They've chosen not to do so on this subject, so we're moving on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no new information or evidence being presented here, so who will be fully-informed of what? Of the fact that a bunch of RFC respondents either have a gut feeling on this, or agree with the evidence presented in the apparently unsuccessful move request? What is the point of having a new discussion if no new support is provided? bd2412 T 03:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Procedural rules must be respected. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a banana republic version of medium, rather than an encyclopedia. For that procedural reason alone, that this RfC was started amidst a move closure adjudication process, after the discussion period allowing all arguments to be made had expired – aside from the fact that Wikiproject NYC corresponds to New York City and is additionally subordinate, as one of the List of cities in New York, to Wikiproject New York, which corresponds to New York State as the Primary Topic, trumping all other PTOPIC arguments from the beginning of time – this page's discussion is rendered moot. Castncoot (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

BD2412, are you of a capacity to hat this particular discussion as closed? Castncoot (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

BD2412, if new evidence is to be presented, this is the time and place to do so. The whole point of a new RfC is to elaborate on the points that many of us felt were unclear with respect to the issue of the primary topic, and that includes delving into the amount of evidence available - you can bring new evidence or request it if you think it's important. Diego (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What is new is the format of the question, which has at least some chance of improving on the latest RM. The purpose of all talk pages, it should be remembered, is to build consensus. For whatever reason, the latest RM has failed to achieve consensus on anything, or so it seems.

So it is valid to look for other ways to build consensus. Many, myself included, feel that the topic of this RfC is a key issue, and that consensus can be achieved on it, or even could already be assessed to exist. Others feel that it is irrelevant, and/or deny forcefully that this consensus exists, and frankly appear determined to prevent any consensus from being achieved..

It would be good to achieve a clear consensus on something, surely? Andrewa (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. @BD2412: You and the closers have alluded to the fact that the primary topic issue, which is usually decided at an RM, cannot be decided at this particular RM because of the way the question was posed as Move or Not Move. This has been provided as a rationale for punting on the issue, but obviously this issue is key to strength of arguments; if there's community consensus that New York State is not the primary topic, then the "move" arguments become much stronger. Since the closers have indicated they do not appear inclined to address the primary topic issue at the RM, then this is not a rehashing of another discussion; it's an attempt to find a broader community consensus on a specific question that would be relevant to future move requests and which has apparently not been adequately explored at the RM. This is again a case where we can't have it both ways. Either the primary topic bit can be assessed at the RM and must be taken into account when weighing the arguments or it cannot be assessed at the RM and therefore can and should be decided at this RfC. It's beyond frustrating that editors are trying to lock us in some type of bureaucratic legal hell whereby they claim we've never argued primary topic properly, but we're forbidden from doing so via some type of non-existent moratorium that's part of a close that's been pending for over a month. (Castncoot, in particular, is arguing in one place that primary topic is "moot" and shouldn't be considered for the move (last hit of "moot" if you ctrl+F at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request) while arguing vigorously here that we can't discuss primary topic because it's heavily tied to the recent move request. I do not drop WP:AGF lightly, but there comes a time when my patience is exhausted. It's extremely facetious to adopt two wholly contradictory arguments when each happens to be convenient for your position.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Rob, please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what I say. Your side is specifically linking primary topic heavily to the move request. Not the oppose side, who believes not to give primary topic WP:UNDUE weight. We can't do your "work" for you, that's not our responsibility. So if you had wanted to make your case about Primary Topic, you had every opportunity to do so the during the move request discussion. And you all did, collectively. Look at the number one argument listed for the support side at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request! The closers took that and everything else into account when they made their decision. Therefore, the discussion on this page represents a brazen attempt at a second bite at the apple after the discussion has already been closed and represents obstructive interference with the process of adjudication that is already cooking; its worth to anything official in Wikipedia is therefore null and void. This RfC as such is moot to any move request discussion, has no constructive value at this point, should be subjected to a moratorium of a yet undetermined amount of time along with any future move request discussion, and should be hatted off immediately. And people, please for goodness sakes allow the panel to come up with a joint decision; Newyorkbrad has already hinted that he will not let this drag on forever. Castncoot (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've asked the other panelists to add anything they wish to. I can't compel them to do so, and one of them seems to be on a wikibreak. My own take is that (1) there is no consensus for a move, (2) people on both sides are becoming unhelpfully obsessed about this entire issue, and (3) if is it up to me, people would focus on other things before renewing discussion of any aspect of this issue for a minimum of several months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, there are aspects of this issue that shouldn't wait for a several-months-long moratorium. This is a time-sensitive issue: every week bad links are created that describe the city but point readers to the state article. No one in the discussion denied that this is happening, but the opposers to the move for the most part conveniently ignored the calls to find a solution to this problem, whether it involved moving the article or not.

The backlog of incoming links to review was alleviated somewhat by the adaptation of bots to fix the trivial cases, but many new wrong links will be created in that time that still will require human supervision. (I tried to lend a hand in the disambiguation task, but I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of this topic to know how to be sure that I would fix most of the problematic links correctly). Every day that we can advance in the task to find a long-term consensus is a step toward solving this problem that affects readers, not just editors. A ban on discussing any aspect, even if it is not a direct request to change the title, would only make the problem worse. Diego (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Diego, to narrowly address what you just rehashed from the move request discussion, the City is part of the State. Therefore, many or most of these are neither technically incorrect nor "bad" links. The ones that are strictly incorrect because the City was specifically searched should be fixed individually by our universal community of editors at the time they get the error, just like with any other error in the text. A drastic response such as a move is certainly not the fix for that. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, and don't use a bulldozer when you simply need a sleek hammer. But most importantly, please follow the rules of Wikipedia, i.e., content arguments need to be off-limits at this point. Castncoot (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A possible increase in the number of incoming links is a non-issue. There are already over 75,000 links to this page (I have clarified several thousand incoming links to point to the city over the time since the last discussion was active); the number of new links that will be created in the next six months pointing to this article but specifically intending the city will be a trivial portion of an already gargantuan number. bd2412 T 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Procedural comments refocus

Agree that several comments above are rehashing the move discussion. Please focus. The aim of this RfC is to

build consensus on whether or not New York State is the primary topic of the article title "New York"

and any distraction from that, however well intended, is counterproductive to the goals of building consensus and improving Wikipedia.

The discussion is timely because there is a strong desire (and in my view a real possibility of consensus) for a moratorium, but much discussion as to its scope and duration. We need to build consensus on the scope and timing, and many (myself included) feel it is unreasonable for the moratorium to include any issue if a decision on it has been excluded from the closure (for whatever reason). There seems grudging consensus that PT is a key issue, although some participants have not been consistent in their position on this, some even arguing that it is not a key issue but at the same time seeing it as important to discourage building consensus on it, whether as part of the RM or apart from it.

I do not wish to put pressure on the panel to include a further statement on primary topic, just the opposite. I am obviously disappointed that two of them do not wish to, but it is their call. This RfC frees them from this pressure, in that once it is resolved, that then removes the main point of contention as to whether a moratorium should extend to PT discussions.

At the risk of putting words into their mouths, there appears to be a majority decision that PT is not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not to move. I respect that decision and recommend a reasonable moratorium to follow it. We must move on. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There is (in my view, subject to any further input from the other panelists) no consensus to move the article even assuming that New York State is not the primary topic. Of those opposing a move, a few commenters felt that New York State was the primary topic, while others felt either explicitly or implicitly that other considerations warranted no-move irrespective of whether or not it was the primary topic. If you accept that there should be no immediate renewal of the move-or-don't-move discussion, I don't see what purpose would be served by discussing the question of primary topic in the abstract, since the only relevance of determining whether the state is the primary topic would be for the purpose of using this fact as an argument for the contested pagemove—outside that context, unless I am missing something, it's just an academic exercise. I very sincerely wish that editors would focus for awhile on some of the 5+ million other pages of the encyclopedia for awhile rather than the name of this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems to confirm my understanding of your position. Exactly!

I think we will need to disagree on whether this discussion is timely. I have given my reasons for thinking it is both timely and constructive (although please note I did not initiate it). It is not an academic exercise but an important part of working towards consensus on a moratorium.

Yes, I am on record as saying that there should be no MR, and a moratorium of at least six months and preferably twelve on any new RM. I have not changed that opinion, and seek now to build consensus supporting it. Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What would the purpose of the discussion you are proposing be? I'm not being argumentative, at least not deliberately so—I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the current discussion on whether NYS is PT, my purpose in participating is to work towards consensus on a moratorium, so we can all have a break from this and get back to all those other articles as you suggested.

(Of course I'm not proposing that discussion, I'm participating in one that has already been started by others. So is it really the one you mean? I haven't intentionally proposed any other recently!)

There are two ways forward that I can see if we are to build consensus on the moratorium. One is to explicitly allow further discussion of PT during the moratorium. The other is to answer the question now. I'm of the opinion that we can answer the question quite easily and rapidly, provided we stay focused on building consensus on the question as asked. So it's the obvious way to go.

I could be wrong. But the poll to date seems already conclusive. The only rationale yet provided supporting a Yes is New York City's name is New York City, so there isn't a name conflict at all and thus no primary topic issue to decide. That rationale is so full of holes that words fail me, but I think its various flaws have all been identified above.

So here is a suggestion right out of the blue... why don't either you or User:Future Perfect at Sunrise close this RfC as Strong consensus that New York State is not the primary topic?

I don't think that would be at all improper. Probably User:Niceguyedc should not do it, nor should you close it if the verdict were otherwise. Any of those might be challenged, and we can do without that!

It's a bit radical perhaps. It would not make a new RM post moratorium any more likely, as that is inescapable anyway. And meantime, we could all get back to more productive editing. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the question of what the primary topic of "New York" is has meaning only in the context of a move discussion, so I still really don't understand the concept of discussing what the primary topic is while purporting not to discuss whether or not to move the page.

As I've previously said several times, I am not prepared to say that there is a consensus that the State is not the primary topic, in part because many participants in the discussion did not believe that was the most important factor to focus on and did not address the issue one way or the other. I have also said that even if it were decided that the State is not the primary topic, this would not resolve whether there is a primary topic, nor would it resolve whether the page should be moved (I think you agree with me on at least the last point).

If the move discussion is closed as no consensus, I will suggest holding off on any further discussion of moving this article and all related issues for either six months or a year. I would consider discussing whether New York State is the primary topic, as well as whether the article should be redirected (as someone has raised on my talkpage), to fall within the scope of the issues that should be held in abeyance during that time, unless someone such as yourself is able to explain what value discussing such collateral issues would have, other than as prelude to the next move discussion.

Can people on this page please find something else to talk about? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If you are not prepared to say that there is a consensus that the State is not the primary topic, then of course you can't take my suggestion. I am surprised at the reason you give, but not really at the result. My suggestion was a bit out of left field I admit!

If we do have a moratorium as broad as you propose, then may I suggest a longer moratorium on RMs? Perhaps a year specifically on RMs, but just six months on related discussions?

That way we will hopefully avoid the situation we now seem to have, that had the RfC been raised before the RM, you would then have been able to assess a consensus on the RfC, and even that the RM might then have succeeded. (We will never know of course.) Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for banging on about this, but it would help us find something else to talk about if there was a single unified result for the RM, that we could all hang our hats on and say that's the outcome. If it's no consensus, that's absolutely fine, but there should be one rationale agreed by the panel, and signed off by all three of them. I may be wrong, but it seems like the continuing discussion stems largely from the inconclusive end to the RM and the fact that I at least don't even fully understand why there was no consensus seen by the panel.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty straightforward, Amakuru - there's no agreement. No agreement ---> no consensus. You can go back and reinvent that wheel before returning to "New York" if you'd like, of course. As far as the length of the moratorium goes, we really should have a !vote and take the median - it would be unfair for one side alone to determine this. Castncoot (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and although your position is well known to me, and no doubt you're happy enough with an ending that has no agreement whatsoever, but you'll forgive me for feeling like there has been an inconclusive ending here. "No consensus" can apply to the debate as a whole, but the point of a panel is that it comes to a definitive consensus amongst its three members. Anything else is a hung jury. That's what happened at Hillary Clinton, and it hasn't yet happened here. Just to be clear, I don't object if the result is "no consensus", but I want there to be a result.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

As I read the various policies and guidelines, a no consensus close is a decision that no consensus is possible, not just that it has not yet been achieved.

I appreciate and share the desires of many to give this a break. It has not been a pleasant experience! But we should first explore all possibilities of consensus, and should commend those who are doing some lateral thinking to seek it, and are prepared to spend time on this.

On the other hand, I again ask that we all work to build consensus. All of us. It may be that a no consensus decision is the result, but to actively work towards such a result is a breach of behavioural guidelines, and may be sanctioned in various ways. Andrewa (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added comments from below which may have been missed, upon the advice of Castncoot. Please read it before you make a judgement. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Arriving a bit late at this section, but it occurred to me the following regarding why this RfC is important, regardless of its possible influence on a move: we are trying to clarify the reasons why the state has been located at this prominent place. Recent comments in the Opinions and "about the question" sections have been shedding light on why some people think this status quo is a fair situation, which frankly is something that was quite unclear from the RM discussion. Diego (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm very late to this, but of course New York State is the primary topic for "New York." No one qualifies state names, as, e.g. "California (state)" or "Alabama (state)", but city names are usually qualified for example "Frankfurt (Oder)", although "New York, New York" might be overkill. Why not qualify the city "New York (city)"? Has anyone counted the relative number of articles? Peter Flass (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter Flass, have a look at Washington (state) and Georgia (U.S. state). And you might consider adding this !vote to #Opinions above. TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Peter is right. The common name convention for US states is virtually universal, and the two you bring up are not on point. In the history of Wikipedia, the common convention has never been departed from, except in 2 out of 50 where there was an entity unconnected or not encompassed by the state, and that circumstance is not relevant here. Ireland and ROI are similar precedent to NY and NYC. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Peter stated No one qualifies state names, as, e.g. "California (state)" or "Alabama (state)". Despite there being two examples where we do exactly that, you now claim Peter is right, on the basis that those two are somehow irrelevant. No, they show that Peter was wrong.

Given that there are two exceptions, why should there not be a third? You say, rightly, that the particular circumstances of the first two are different to this one. True. So we need to examine the circumstances of this third one. And if we find that they also justify an exception to this common (but not universal) convention, as I think we do, then we make it. Is that so hard? Andrewa (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Side stepping the naming question

As the naming issue doesn't seem to be able to reach a consensus how about looking at an alternate approaches? I know a broad concept article on the combined geographical regions of both the state and the city had been suggested where I suggested this already, but as I commented there, I think the article on the state itself can fulfill this role. Given that the city is the most notable city in the state a section of this article to the city seems reasonable. Yes it is mentioned through out the article but it would allow both the city and the state to be covered at the "New York" title with a {{Main}} link to the city's article. PaleAqua (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This actually sounds like a bright idea. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It got little support before, but perhaps it was the way in which it was presented.

How would the lede of such an article read? See draft:New York for my attempt. Andrewa (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks good so far. I hope to offer help, please check the draft for these updates. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think this helps much. Yes, the two concepts are intertwined and related, but they are still fundamentally a pair of very distinct things. A big city and a big US state. The vast majority of readers will want specifically one or the other, so I don't see the value of another article that somehow covers both. IMHO anyway, tho others may disagree with me.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I can understand what you mean, but their is a reason why they are intertwined and related. I'm facing similar problems on the Emirates of the United Arab Emirates articles, which are debated on if they are distinct. This has resulted in some emirates like Abu Dhabi having separate articles for the city and emirates, but others having a combined page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Update Would this be a set index or, disambiguation or, something new and unique? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think there is any doubt that we should end up with dedicated articles on both New York State and New York City by whatever names! I could be wrong. But it seems a no-brainer to me.

The suggestion as I understand it is that we could have, in addition, a higher-level article which covers both topics (and perhaps others), and that this could be validly formed from the article currently at New York. It's a bit out of left field, but lateral thinking is good. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was actually thinking something different from that not a broad concept article but increasing the coverage of the city in the existing state article. PaleAqua (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@PaleAqua: No offense, but I think as Amakuru stated about them being distinct that this would be troublesome. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Update We would also need to consider these articles Outline of New York and Index of New York-related articles, but I think that fixing these minor problems is worth it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood this time I think. I completely misinterpreted you when you raised this before (as I admitted at the time). Andrewa (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Although technical considerations come second to content, a broad concept article would also solve the problem of identifying wikilinks having an inappropriate target. Almost all links to the new page would be errors, and these would become easy to distinguish from deliberate links to the State article. Certes (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

True. This is another advantage, as people who watch the redirects towards the page could much easily fix it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Update I just realised that this would temporarily require the wikilinks to the state article being corrected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Update again Wikidata would also be have to fixed, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Against a broad-concept article, IMO a non-starter for reasons including that which Amakuru outlined, and another Trojan horse – this discussion should obviously be part of any move request-related moratorium. Castncoot (talk)

Agree that this discussion should obviously be part of any move request-related moratorium, assuming by that you mean a broad moratorium that includes PT. This is even more directly related to the move proposal than is the broader PT discussion. But this is no Trojan horse. There is no deceit here, and frankly you seem preoccupied with the thought that we are all out to deceive you and the whole of New York. We are not. There's no point in that.

But you are confusing three distinct issues. One is, will a broad-concept article or something similar be helpful? Another is, if we do create one, what should it be called? And the third, if we achieve consensus that something along these lines would be helpful at New York (a very big if in the current environment), how do we then proceed?

IMO it's pointless to even discuss those second and third issues without some indication that we have addressed the first. And we seem to have fallen off the horse at the first fence. (;->

I am still surprised... dumbfounded, even... that your former enthusiasm (to put it mildly) for the HLJC does not translate to at least interest in this proposal. As I see it, the whole motivation for this proposal was that you seemed to think that the New York article already serves as a sort of BCA, and should do so... that's the whole basis of the HLJC. Did I get that wrong? I must ask, was the HLJC itself just a Trojan horse of sorts? Andrewa (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please drop the hyperbole. HLJC is a concept whose practice has nothing to do with the quixotic idea of a broad concept article for the topic "New York". Castncoot (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbole? Nothing like it. One of the panelists noted A few editors engaged in unreasonable rhetorical hyperbole (such as claims that a pagemove would case "irreparable harm" to Wikipedia, New York State, and New York City, or would "be confusing to one billion Africans and corrupt our children's education")..., but there is nothing remotely like those ridiculous claims above. Is there now?

The connection is there whether you acknowledge it or not. Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Scope of the articles

Discussion above with User:Alanscottwalker suggests to me a way forward along the lines above. SO let's have another go at building consensus!

He speaks of New York City, created in 1898 under the laws of New York. But this is not the scope of our current New York City article at all. That article is much broader in scope, tracing the history on New York back to 1664. The article Mayor of New York City similarly traces the office back to 1665. as does List of mayors of New York City.

Now this seems to me to indicate one reason for the impasse we now face, and also a solution. If the New York City article were scoped to mean just the city since 1898, then some of the support for NYS as PT begins to make sense. It's not, of course, but at least one editor seems to think it is or at least should be. Is clarifying the scope of that article part of the solution?

I've just expanded the lede of draft:New York to better indicate its scope. [2] While perhaps not strictly a BCA, would an article scoped as I have there be an acceptable candidate for the base name New York?

I think it would satisfy the naming conventions. It also seems to me to satisfy the concerns expressed by those determined to keep an article covering the State at the base name. Comments? Does it? Andrewa (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That structure looks good to me. That might be a clean solution to the problem of people not wanting to place a disambiguation page at the base name. In fact I find it quite clarifying for those directly unfamiliar with the territory. Diego (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the hope. We're an encyclopedia, catering to a broad range of readers (most of whom probably just assume that NYC is the capital of NYS, if indeed they have even heard of the state). The way some of this discussion has gone, you'd think we were being sponsored by the New York Tourist Bureau. We're here to inform, not promote. Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the scope of the present article is broader not narrower, it covers the entire area/peoples/institutions included in the creation of the present New York City in 1898 under the laws of New York. The second sentence talks of the entire population of New York City (not some past time), indeed every section of the article references directly or by implication the whole of present New York City, which is broader than your partial focus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You're saying that the current article on New York State (currently at New York) is broader in scope than the draft at draft:New York which covers both New York State and New York City? Seriously? That's a very strange claim! Parts of New York City (in its broadest sense) aren't even in New York State! Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, parts of the New York metropolitan area aren't in New York State. But the City entirely is. And that's not splitting hairs, that's the way the area is correctly refered to in the actual New York metro area. New York isn't like Sydney where there's no definitive border. Saying parts of the city aren't in New York State makes you sound ill-informed and unknowledgable about the subject. Really makes me question whether we should even listen to you in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Diego (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, see New York metropolitan area. As seen in the infobox, it covers four different states, and actually has a population larger than the state of New York itself. We all know that the NYC city boundaries are fixed and entirely within the state, but then again those Passaic and Bergen counties and all that are pretty much part of the city as well, even if not officially.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll be the first to acknowledge that Bergen County depends on NYC (Y'know, living there and all), but calling them "pretty much part of the city" is a stretch, being wholly politically independent, with no common governance outside of the federal government. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oknazevad isn't claiming that he owns the topic. But as I have also said before in this discussion, one loses credibility arguing about a topic without the requisite topic experience. So even though I'm perfectly allowed and welcome to start tinkering with the status of Sydney or New South Wales, I would only do so with great caution rather than running in like a bull in a porcelainware store. Castncoot (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If we were to scope the Sydney article down to the CBD, or something equally ridiculous, I would hope that others would correct us, regardless of any local jargon... which seems to be the problem here, see below. The current situation of NYS being at New York is even more bizarre to most readers and to most editors. You seem to think that any attempt at addressing this is like a bull in a porcelainware store, but it's really just trying to make a better Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Permit me to clarify. I'm not a NY local and find the local jargon rather bizarre I admit. I said New York City (in its broadest sense) and hoped this would cover such things as the New York metropolitan area. Obviously that isn't at all what you took me to mean!

My initial reaction is that you are indeed splitting hairs. The point of my statement was, the draft overview article is intended to cover and does cover both the whole New York metropolitan area, and the whole state, and anything else that a naive reader such as myself might reasonably expect to be included in an article on the New York we're talking about. And that's why it's very important to talk to me and others who are not from New York, and don't know the local jargon. Most Wikipedia readers don't come from New York, and we need to cater for both those who do and those who don't.

I remain of the opinion that the claim that the scope of the present article is broader not narrower is bizarre. It seems that you think it's correct, but to me that is also bizarre.

Can you clarify? I'm coming to think that that this colossal difference in our understanding of what seem to be quite simple words underlies a lot of the whole controversy... which is after all, all about what we call the articles. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I specifically used Sydney as an example because I know that it has a fairly nebulous definition because of the structure of local government in NSW, and that you'd be familiar with that. What I'm saying is that there is no such ambiguity in New York City, and the boundaries are definitive and understood. "New York City" equals the five boroughs and nothing more. If something is outside the five boroughs, it is not New York City, even if it is well within the metro area. No one considers Bergen County, New Jersey, part of New York City, even though it's right across the Hudson River and connected by the George Washington Bridge. It's very much part of the New York Metropolitan Area, but it is not New York City.

Conversely, Buffalo, New York is a major city in the state, and is a place so one may talk about if refering to "New York", but it is no way part of the New York Metropolitan Area, as it's all the way at the other end of the state, a seven hour drive away. So equating "New York Metropolitan Area" with "New York" is simply incorrect, as the metro area does not encompass the whole state, but does encompass parts of adjacent states. As is equating "New York Metropolitan Area" with "New York City", as the city has definite legal boundaries that play out in politics, criminal and civil law, mail delivery, and innumerable cultural and economic factors. Someone from Nassau County, New York might call themselves a New Yorker, but that's because they're refering to the state. They wouldn't say they live in New York City, even though it's right adjacent to the county (they'd call themselves a Long Islander). Essentially, the point is, "New York City (in the broadest sense)" is incorrect usage.

Essentially, I agree that "New York" can be ambiguous, and the state should carry a disambiguator (which is how I !voted in the move discussion; the city is already naturally disambiguated and should not move) but I don't see the need to rehash the discussion when the last as-formal-as-it-gets discussion is still not fully closed. There is no deadline, and it is not a crisis that needs to be addressed right now; a possible moratorium should be respected instead of approached with a "got to get this done before he moritorium" attitude. That's counter productive and looks bad, to be honest. Forcing discussion doesn't work if there's only a few people participating. There certainly isn't enough here to make any permanent decisions.oknazevad (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

For most of us the phrase New York City (in the broadest sense) is a natural thing to say in the context, and I don't see any better way to express it. It would be almost universally and correctly understood. But a very small minority of readers do have a big problem with it and similar phrases, and they are well represented and very vocal in this discussion. Which is the main point.

So I agree with nearly all of what you say above, but it but misses the point I think. To say that New York City (in the broadest sense) is incorrect usage is not helpful unless you can suggest some alternative.

Agree 100% that forcing discussion does not work. Building consensus can be tricky, particularly when there are others (not you certainly) hard at work to undermine it. Doing my best! Thanks for your efforts. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Should we move the draft

I think draft:New York which was set up just to explore the concept is now useful enough to move to the article namespace.

Now don't panic...

Obviously it can't go to New York. But it could go to New York (overview). That would be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent (wp:AT of course), and very helpful to readers, particularly if we keep it short and focused. And there's no other article likely to compete for that title.

And if it is to move, better done before we have a moratorium to consider. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Doesn't it defeat the entire point of the draft? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how. A draft is supposed to be a temporary version to be replaced by something more permanent. When I set it up there was no guarantee that we'd ever get to that stage, but as what we have looks useful, we seem to be there. Andrewa (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see something. I don't like what's happening now. Peter Flass (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The draft will certainly be useful with a title such as [[New York (overview)]] if we wikilink to it from appropriate places such as the state, city and dab pages. I think that's worth doing, even if other advantages (speedy loading, identification of careless links) can't be achieved because the overview isn't called [[New York]].

Thanks, User:Certes, this seems to be from you [3] but the sig somehow got lost.

Despite the negative reception below I'm still tempted to raise an RM to move this as proposed. Any further comments? Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing should be moved at this time. The actual move discussion has not been given final closure by the admins who were agreed upon by consensus. And that's okay; there is WP:NODEADLINE. Frankly, if someone links to New York intending the city, then just fix the link as it is found. Again, no deadline.

The draft itself is exceedingly redundant, by the way.

Frankly, that there is a discussion at all regarding "primary topic", a bit of distinct Wikipedia jargon, is questionable. The only reason to discuss that is in relation to article titles. That we "must have the discussion before the moratorium" tells me that it's just an attempt to end run around the unclosed discussion. No actions should be taken because of this discussion. oknazevad (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with some of this. It's very sad that we need to do this.

But it's far less an attempt to end run around the unclosed discussion than the various attempts to end run around both our naming conventions and the reasons we have them. Surely, there is enough evidence by now that NYS is not the PT, and that by the normal discussion closing criteria, we have consensus on that? Surely, there is enough evidence by now that the current situation is harmful to our readers?

And against that, there is not one shred of evidence that the current situation has any advantage whatsoever for our readers, or complies with either the spirit or letter of the guidelines. All we have is procedural stonewalling and flawed arguments. And we have a great variety of both, pursued with strange enthusiasm.

The current situation disadvantages our readers and makes a mockery of our guidelines. Please don't blame me for wanting to go through all legitimate channels to work towards consensus-driven progress on these two outstanding problems. Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand... a little sub-poll to help me

Above are some very interesting comments. In particular, I naively referred to New York City (in its broadest sense) and was rather curtly told by a New Yorker (this is important) that all of NYC was within New York State and, more to the point, that I was showing such ignorance that I should not even be heard in the discussion.

This I think is getting right to the heart of the whole controversy! It might explain not only why the disagreement, but also why the passion, and indicate how we can address both to build consensus. So a little, entirely voluntary, survey:

Does the phrase New York City (in its broadest sense) include all of the New York metropolitan area?

And just to be clear, I mean the whole phrase New York City (in its broadest sense). The (in its broadest sense) is part of the phrase I used, a phrase which was completely misunderstood. And I do not blame anyone for the misunderstanding. It takes two to communicate. I just want to investigate exactly why I failed to communicate effectively on that occasion. I think it might reveal a great deal!

So please answer Yes, or No, or Don't know, as a first-level bullet, and also say where you are from. And feel free to add any other comments you think helpful. TIA Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Subpoll survey

• Yes. Hobbys Yards, New South Wales. Andrewa (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. Is this serious. New York City, comprising the five boroughs, is well defined geographically and quite small. What does "in its broadest sense" mean? Do you not appreciate the social boundary associated with crossing into New Jersey? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on the subpoll

This is frivolous to hold an opinion poll like this. Would you ever hold such a poll to ask if people think that 3+3=7? It's also annoying to be finding out today that at least one person leading the side supporting a move is not even properly informed of the basic facts. I'm not happy about about the enormous amount of of time I have wasted upon this ludicrous exercise. Please, this is way more than enough already. Castncoot (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Andrewa, your statement above that you were "rather curtly told by a New Yorker (this is important) that all of NYC was within New York State" is factually false – as Oknazevad mentioned, he is not a New Yorker, but rather a New Jerseyan. I request you to please defer to those who actually have topic experience to make the weighty decisions here. Castncoot (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Fully concur with Castncoot that this proposed poll makes no sense.

The basic facts that Castncoot is referring to are as follows: Americans use cities as metonyms for their metro areas only in very casual small talk (especially when speaking with strangers while traveling outside of their own metro areas), but are more precise in formal contexts. For example, when an American celebrity gives an interview to a journalist writing a detailed biographical profile, he would never say "I was born in New York City" if not actually born in the five boroughs, because the next question would be which borough. Rather, he would say, "I was born in Newark, New Jersey, just across the Hudson River from New York City."

In order to understand why Americans are so sensitive to the boundaries of governmental entities, you have to read up on identity politics in the Thirteen Colonies---namely, the strong tendency of colonists to identify as citizens of their colony, the many reasons for why they felt that way, and its ramifications. It is only when you understand the reasons underlying that tendency that the very idea of the United States (as in multiple states) begins to make sense. After all, it would have been a lot easier to just form a unitary state and turn the existing colonies into huge counties. The reasons I am alluding to have been amply explained in numerous historical books and textbooks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was the norm everywhere. A place has defined boundries or it doesn't. it would be like calling a Canadian from Niagara Falls (Canada) an American because he lived just across the river from Niagara Falls (New York). I think the proposal has it right, the New York metropolitan area (or the tri-state area, although it only includes pargts of three states) is not the same as the City of New York. I'm a new yorker, but from upstate, so perhaps that doesn't count.Peter Flass (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue of some North Americans not being American is way more complicated in a pedantic sense. The forum for that endless discussion is Talk:America (disambiguation). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly what I want to understand, or a large part of it at least. The next question, of course, will be: How do we best deal with these sensitivities? Andrewa (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Castncoot. Although you have chose not to participate in the survey (so far at least), I think that makes your position clear, and it's helpful.

According to our current articles, Bergen County is within the New York City metropolitan area. But I understand that its residents might object to the term New Yorker, just as many Scots don't like to be called British.

And I apologise for any offence caused. But is there any better term for those within all the various areas that might be included in New York City by the naive reader?

My intention is not frivolous. It is a serious attempt to understand the issues, in order to eventually build some sort of consensus, and I ask that you respect that. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Not objection, so much as looking at you like you've got three heads, as the idea of calling a New Jerseyan a New Yorker runs counter to basic fact that New Jersey is not part of New York (city or state), even if the northern half (roughly) is in the NYC metro area and largely dominated by satellite cities and bedroom suburbs of New York City. It isn't about offense (though there may some part of that) as it just is incorrect by basic geography. The Scots example is a weak analogy, because Scotland is still part of the U.K.. It'd be more like calling a New Zealander an Australian. It's just factually incorrect.

As for the second, very reasonable question, there really is no single demonym that covers people from the entire New York City metro area (other than "American"). It doesn't help that definitions of the area vary, nor does it help that not all New Yorkers (meaning the state), New Jerseyans, nor Connecticuters are in the New York City metro area. It also doesn't help that "New Yorker" is the correct demonym for someone living anywhere in the state, not just the city; it's almost as if the city doesn't really have its own demonym, though when the mayor refers to "New Yorkers", he's definitely talking about residents of the city.

But the other part of that question, as to what a "naïve reader" might also include in something called "New York City", it seems to me our educational purpose would be best served by eliminating the naïveté and letting people realize that, while still living within the NYC metro area, people in Northern New Jersey and Southwest Connecticut are never called New Yorkers, and that people who live on Long Island or the Lower Hudson Valley are so called not because they're from the New York City but because they live in the state of New York. We'd be better off informing within the existing articles than a repetitive high concept article. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, although you have also (for whatever reason) chosen not to participate in the survey, that very much addresses what I wish to explore by it.

Yes, I suspected that you and many others who live in or close to New York would look at me as if I have three heads. That's a very to the point. You say it's more like calling a New Zealander an Australian. It's just factually incorrect. That is your viewpoint, and it's a valid viewpoint, and it is dominating this discussion.

And the underlying question is, should this viewpoint (which has historically chosen the title of the NYS article, because of course New York-etc-ers were the first and still are the major contributors to that article)... should this viewpoint continue to decide the naming?

To most of the world, it is far, far worse to call a New Zealander an Aussie. New Zealand has never been part of Australia, and still is not, in any sense. It is, as you say, factually inaccurate. But to you it looks a similar thing to calling a person who lives in a dormitory suburb of New York, which is officially part of the NY Metropolitan area, a New Yorker. From a global perspective, who has the three heads?

As has been pointed out, there are historical and cultural factors underlying this local perspective. We may be culturally naive in Aust, but we did watch The Swamp Fox as children, and as we grew up realised what an impact this history (which of course largely took place in the north-eastern states) has had on Americans and their culture (and I guess Canadians might now object to me calling the US America... follow those last two links, it's interesting).

And that's exactly what we need to address if we wish to build consensus. It is understandable that many (perhaps all) of your viewpoint wish to frustrate the building of consensus. It's a very common reading of the closing instructions that this is a valid way to argue. I believe it's still a mistaken view, but that's another sub-issue, to be dealt with in due course.

Back to the chase. Our naming conventions clearly state that the most important issue in deciding how to disambiguate is whether or not there is a primary topic (and if so what it is, but this question only becomes relevant if there is consensus that there is a primary topic).

And our naming conventions are, in this case, right on the money. There is now discussion about how much this article title matters. Again, I think there is a flaw in arguing for the status quo on the grounds that it doesn't really matter either way, especially in the light of the passion that some have expressed, but that seems to be the argument. But there is no real doubt that Wikipedia would be improved (however slightly) for the readers if we could eventually follow the more global perspective, as our naming conventions would have us do.

Which brings me to your final point: How do we best educate readers? To me that's a no-brainer. We get them to the information they want, and provide them with accurate, factual information when they get there. We certainly do not promote a local POV by our choice of article title... as hard as this may be to some editors associated with the particular article and its topic.

Again, our naming converntions are right on the money. They normally are. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Bzzzzt. Francis Marion, "The Swamp Fox" was from South Carolina, not exactly the north-east. Peter Flass (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(replying to User:Peter Flass above) Yes, but many other significant events of the period, including ones specifically mentioned in the TV series, took place further north, and influenced the culture there, did they not? In at least one episode (the fictional) Marion himself travels to the north-eastern states, from memory. Andrewa (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, to answer the first, I haven't participated in the survey because a survey is the wrong methodology/format for this discussion. That no one else has participated either is evidence of that.

Secondly, there is no local POV/opinion in my statement, just facts. New Jerseyabs are not called "New Yorkers", regardless of how close it is. I'm not going to speculate why that is, I'm just here to present the facts. oknazevad (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

But then again, if you said you were going to "the city", people would assume you meant New York, wouldn't they. Not Newark or Jersey City or Trenton or anywhere like that?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's hardly unique to NYC. Look at the etymology of "Istanbul" sometime. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

These facts are contrary to the evidence above. New Jerseyabs are at least occasionally called New Yorkers... perhaps only in ignorance of local usage.

This broader usage does not mean we have three heads, and to attempt to impose the local usage on the rest of the world is indeed POV. It may be a commendable thing, but this is not the way to do it. Campaign to change the global usage by all means. And then Wikipedia will follow. Not the other way around. Present the facts in the articles, appropriately sourced, and this might well help the campaign. That's a good thing to do.

I am not questioning this local usage. I freely admit that I have little if any knowledge of it, like most readers, and the survey above is just one way in which I have sought information.

What I am saying is, local usage is not the whole story or even most of it. Wikipedia article titles should normally take a global perspective, reflecting global usage, as the guidelines very clearly indicate. If this is a special case where they should not, then we need to build a consensus on this, and incorporate it into the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

To which facts are you referring? I see no evidence that New Jerseyans are called New Yorkers. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence, either. In fact, this forum is the first time that I have ever even heard of such a comparison. By the way, I have to interject a little humor here. Oknazevad inadvertently misspelled the term as "New Jerseyabs," and Andrewa then obediently continued the same misspelling. Lol! Can a person be legitimately labeled both a New South Welshman and a Victorian at the same time in Australia? Castncoot (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Too subtle for either of you obviously. I used the term (above). I'm a native speaker of English, so trivially one such uses the term (however ignorantly). QED.

The fact that you've never heard it so used (not before, anyway) is admitted. But it's quite natural for one whose knowledge of the area is limited... most of us... to refer to anyone from New York City Metropolitan Area as a New Yorker. Many who have heard of New York would not have heard of Bergen County. I do remember hearing someone introduce themselves as being from there years ago, and I was at the time none the wiser. If they'd said New York then from your point of view (and possibly theirs) they'd have been lying. However from mine, that would have been accurate information. I would not have felt mislead if they had later said "Actually, we're in New Jersey", any more than I would have thought someone was misleading me if they said "I'm from Sydney" when they really lived in the City of Parramatta, or if they had said "I live in London" when in fact they lived in the City of Westminster.

Yes, I wondered at the term Jerseyabs. It's a good thing I'm not claiming to know American English... if such exists (;-> The Scots and the Irish leave you close to tears. There even are places where English completely disappears. In America they haven't used it for years. - Henry Higgins. We have some strange terms here... do you know where a Novocastrian is from? I guess Taswegian is obvious.

The joke is on me for taking it at face value. Accepted! Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I just did My Fair Lady with my summer theatre group. That line always gets a laugh. From New Jerseyans. (I hate typos, by the way, and am slightly embarrassed by that one!.)

But I think the point Castncoot and I trying to tell you is that you are incorrect in calling New Jerseyans "New Yorkers". Just because one person does it doesn't make it a valid usage. I know that Wikipedia, like most modern reference works that seek to present material neutrally, is descriptive not prescriptive, but there's still a minimum prevelance necessary for something to be considered more than just a mistake.

Oh, and again, the City of Westminster is a port analogy, as it's still part of the consolidated greater London, so people living in Westminster do live in London. The name of the City of London, meaning the medieval square mile, is akin to Manhattan also being "New York County", or the pre-consolidation portion of Toronto being known as Old Toronto. oknazevad (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Westminster really a port analogy? When last I was there, the shipping was making no attempt to go further East than London Bridge. Has it perhaps fallen down? (;->

More to the point, what's the difference between Westminster being in Greater London and part of New Jersey being in the New York City Metropolitan Area? In particular, how is this distinction relevant to the topic under discussion?

On the question of attestation, many linguistic papers do need to rely on a single attestation in their text corpus on occasions. It's not ideal, but the correct approach is to seek more data, not to dismiss the example.

The underlying question I am investigating is: Does most of the English-speaking world use the term New York in a significantly different way to New-York-etc-ers? And the use of the term New Yorker is obviously related, as they have a common root.

Because if this is the case, if there is a significant difference, then user:Castncoot's request above (and many other places in slightly different terms but fairly consistently) to please defer to those who actually have topic experience to make the weighty decisions here is in fact an invitation to lead us astray, is it not? How will we find out? Do you see why I think we should try to find out?

I do try to be happy to be educated! wp:creed#15 Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"More to the point, what's the difference between Westminster being in Greater London and part of New Jersey being in the New York City Metropolitan Area? In particular, how is this distinction relevant to the topic under discussion?"

The difference is that Greater London has a common government with a mayor and assembly overseeing the whole of it, whereas the New York metropolitan area does not. Greater London is a consolidated city, much as the five boroughs of New York City are (fun fact: at the time of consolidation in 1898 and for a few years thereafter, the modern consolidated city was often refered to as "Greater New York"). In other words, the analogy is not between Greater London and the New York metro area, but between Greater London and the consolidated, 5-borough NYC. The analogy for the New York metro area is the London Commuter Belt. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Love it, perfectly and brilliantly stated, Oknazevad. In other words, Andrewa, governance is the operative word here, and it is absolutely relevant. By the way, speaking of governance, you seem not to have answered my question above - namely, can an Australian be legitimately labeled both a New South Welshman and a Victorian at the same time? I want to be very cautious in making any assumptions here, Andrewa, and that's why I politely ask. My assumption along the same lines, by the way, would be that this is not a legitimate possibility, because the those two Aussie states are governed by different state governments. Castncoot (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that emphasis on governance just the HLJC by another name?

Yes, I can remember an example from my own experience where a number of Westpac bank branches were both in Victoria and NSW... depending on context. They were the border-hop branches near the Murray river (the state border) which were part of our Victorian computer network, but were physically in NSW and of course had NSW BSBs. In the Monday morning Computer Ops trouble meeting, they were included in the Victoria reports (some of them regularly at one stage), and discussed as Victorian branches.

But that isn't even remotely relevant, unless New York means New York State. In this particular context, when we are discussing whether people who are explicitly in another state are also in New York, New York is not likely to mean the state. In this context it is far more likely to mean something else... perhaps the city, perhaps the metropolitan area, perhaps something else again. But not the state. Isn't it?

In that I've had a go at your question, you might note that in the perfectly and brilliantly stated reply you so admired, User:Oknazevad ignored three of mine. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that there's a parallel to the London Commuter belt. Disagree that it's a better analogy. What would you see as the analogy to Greater London in the case of New York?

See also reply to User:Castncoot above. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've already said that. You seem to be ignoring my answers, too. But for the sake of discussion, the analogy to Greater London, explicitly meaning the area governed by the London Assembly and Mayor of London is New York City itself, as it is a consolidated city governed by the New York City Council and the Mayor of New York City. "Greater London" does not refer to the London metro area as a whole. oknazevad (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The direct counterpart to Greater London would be the five boroughs of New York City, with very distinct boundaries and one mayor, unlike the New York metropolitan area, which is more loosely defined, comprising hundreds of different municipalities, and having no common governance whatsoever. Meanwhile, I believe that your answer to my question about the Aussie states and their residents was evasive at best. You've cited an example of one private business apparently using a term for strictly business purposes. Would individuals living physically in NSW but near the border with Victoria be properly classified as Victorians, or for that matter, Melbournians or Melbournites? Castncoot (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of the big Australian cities aren't close to state boundaries, so it's hard to make a direct comparison. Maybe Gold Coast, Queensland is the nearest example. At the southern end of the conurbation is Tweed Heads, New South Wales. Would people there consider themselves Gold Coastarians? Interestingly, during the summer months they aren't even on the same timezone as the neighbouring areas due to daylight saving time. Tweed Heads sees in the newyear one hour before Gold Coast. That contrasts with Gary, Indiana, which is out of sync and on a different timezone than most of the rest of the state, presumably because it's part of Chicagoland.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to be evasive... and Westpac is not a private business as we think of it, but your ignorance of our local terminology doesn't count against you any more than my ignorance of yours should be counted against me. Australian retail banks tend to be in some senses bigger than US ones, owing to the different regulations, and we had some very funny dealings with IBM as a result. At one stage we had the biggest IMS DC network in the world (it may even still be the case), and there were some hilarious blunders made by staff in IBM USA, much to the embarrassment of IBM Australia. The Texas mentality we called it, they regularly just assumed that the biggest of everything was in the USA.

Yes, Brisbane/Gold Coast might be an Australian analogy, but probably better ones would be Albury and Wodonga (again on the Murray), and Canberra and Queanbeyan. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You are both saying that there is nothing that people talk about enough to give it a name that corresponds to Greater London, and are instead describing something devised for this discussion. That tells us absolutely nothing, however brilliantly stated it may be. My analogy stands. No analogy is perfect, that's not the point.

To restate it, an outsider (most of us) is just as entitled and likely to think of a resident (any resident) of the New York Metropolitan Area as being from New York as they are a resident of Westminster as being from London. Most of us know at least roughly where and what New York is (or think we do, anyway), far fewer know where New Jersey is, and even fewer know the details of US state and local government. Do you wish to question any of that? Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Westpac is indeed a business, and when I say "private", I mean that it is not an arm of the government in the same way that the Reserve Bank of Australia is, so that is probably an accurate description. I'm not saying that it's a privately held corporation, which would gave a different connotation altogether. Would any Queenslander be properly labeled as a New South Welshman or as a Sydneysider? And Amakuru, I challenge you to find even a single person from Gary, Indiana who would be labeled as a Chicagoan. Parts of Pennsylvania actually lie within the New York metropolitan area, but many residents in those areas are unlikely to even be aware of this factoid and would be no less than aghast to be called a New Yorker (hyperbole simply for emphasis there, but they would simply deny being a New Yorker citing geographical correctness, they would call themselves Pennsylvanians). And finally, I don't know how many times either Oknazevad or I has/have to repeat this answer, but Greater London is the direct, analogous counterpart to the five boroughs of New York City taken collectively. Castncoot (talk)

Exactly. The difference, as I've tried to explain to you five times (at least) is that Westminster is in London, it is one of its boroughs, a constituent part of the whole city; its residents vote for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. Greater London has definite political boundaries, just like New York City, but unlike Sydney. On the other hand, North Jersey is not part of NYC; it is not under the same jurisdiction (outside of the federal government). That's why the analogy doesn't work. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And as I've replied, these details of governance are irrelevant. Get the HLJC adopted and they will become relevant, yes. But meantime, stick to the conventions that are in place. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that you were quite in order in describing Westpac as a private business, User:Castncoot, regardless of how strange it sounded to me. I understood it perfectly well. And similarly, the rest of the world is equally entitled to use the term New York in the way that makes sense to us... ignorant as we may be of local usage. The official position is important, and is described in the article, in order to dispel any ignorance on our part. But the article title is based on global usage, not local usage.

You ask Would any Queenslander be properly labeled as a New South Welshman or as a Sydneysider? Most unlikely. But if the Brisbane dormitory belt were to extend all the way to Tweed Heads, and if in recognition of this the Brisbane Metropolitan Area were to include Tweed Heads, then we'd have a parallel to New York, and residents of Tweed Heads would in a sense be in both New South Wales and Brisbane.

They would still not be in two states of course. That suggestion is a red herring. And as stated, residents of Gol Gol are already in both New South Wales and Mildura, despite Mildura being in Victoria. But they aren't in two states. Life (and language) is like that sometimes! Andrewa (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Without peeking, I'd say a novocastrian is someone from Newcastle, but that's Latin. I can't see that there will ever be a consensus on this. People can quote arguments at each other all day. Peter Flass (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

10/10 on novocastrian.

There may never by unanimity, agreed. But I remain hopeful on an eventual rough consensus.

To give up on consensus is against Wikipedia policy in many subtle ways. It could even be seen as a violation of wp:AGF. If we have good faith, then we should all be willing to examine our views, and admit the possibility of changing them. Yes, that means me too.

Conversely, to not be willing to examine our own views (or even claims) is a tacit admission that we have little faith in them. Hence the observation doth protest too much, methinks. Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think someone already mentioned this, but everything has a proper name:

• New York City - the five boroughs (political boundaries)
• New York State - (political boundaries)
• New York Metropolitan area or the Tri-state area - NYC + Long Island, parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, and other parts of NY at least as far north as Yonkers (conventional boundaries)

"New York" could equally well refer to any of these. I think this was in the proposed disambiguation page. Peter Flass (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yonkers? You mean the city that directly borders the Bronx? The one that is literally adjacent to NYC. No one uses that as the northern extent of the NYC metro area. Try Poughkeepsie, at the least. If you don't know the geography, why are you commenting? oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Conventional" boundaries? By the way, I don't see a signature following that comment there. No, the metro area does NOT have conventional boundaries. Ignorance of the facts doesn't justify using the wrong terminology, regardless of where you're from. Castncoot (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A loaded question

I want to ask a loaded question, particularly but not only addressed to User:Castncoot and User:Oknazevad, and I want to be transparent about it.

But first I wish to answer a few: Why am I doing this? Isn't the RM result obvious? Do I expect the closing panel to read this section at all?

I'm still trying to build consensus. If I could convince the two editors mentioned above to think again, there might I think still be a chance of a consensus close. Or if they could convince me, same. Or if we must have a no consensus close, then when it comes up again whether in 2017 or 2022, this will be valuable data to build consensus then. It will give us all something to think about even if we agree not to discuss it further. Some light reading for the next six years perhaps.

And no, the panel shouldn't even think of wading through it for the moment, and that's why it's best on this talk page not on one of the RM subpages.

So why a loaded question? (And I note that our article on loaded question doesn't match what I mean by one in this case.)

I have been asked above to provide an Australian example of a situation analogous to the New York/New Jersey situation. And I think I have a beauty. Last time I was in Mildura I stayed at the Mildura Riverview Motel, in Gol Gol, see their website (and I'd go back there).

Gol Gol is in New South Wales. Mildura is in Victoria... most of it anyway, depending on exactly what you mean by Mildura. Is Gol Gol in Mildura? Are parts of New Jersey in New York?

So here's my loaded question for the New-York-etc-ers among us...

Are there local businesses in Bergen County or similar locations that call themselves New York (whatever)?

(Substitute something for whatever, in whatever position... New York Florist, Flowers of New York, Roses 4 U (New York), whatever... it doesn't even have to be a business, but that's the obvious first place to look. Just a name for something that says New York but is actually in New Jersey.)

I had a go at Googling it and maybe I didn't have the search quite right... lots of ghits, too much work to sort out the relevant ones. I need a local, or a local 'phone book at least.

It's a loaded question (as I understand the term, is there a better one?) because regardless of the answer, I think it will be linguistic data that supports a move, eventually. We will see. Either way, I hope it will eventually help to build consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what that question proves. There are plenty of business here that call themselves "New York (whatever)" and/or use artwork and themes of New York. and I live in the southern United States. FWIW several of the closest to me are actually referring to the state and not the city. One is a buffalo style wing place and the other is covered with artwork related to Endicott. Granted the third closest one serves New York style pizza and has mostly pictures of NYC but their logo is the outline of the state. PaleAqua (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This has no bearing on my close, nor do I think it especially relevant to the naming issue ... but how about New York Jets and New York Giants? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, good stuff. As MetLife Stadium is in New Jersey, the New York in those titles can't refer to the state, as far as I can see. Those examples were I think raised before (somewhere!) but I didn't see their significance at the time.

I'm not trying to provide input to the panel here. There's a possibility, however remote, that if enough people change their views enough to ask you to consider assessing a consensus close (either way), I might do that, but cross that bridge then. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

We won't know what (if anything) it proves until the data is in. And that's a good start! Thank you, that was quick. Andrewa (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Those football teams were based in New York before they moved to New Jersey. The teams simply retained the name New York, likely to keep the cachet that "New York" carries. And Andrewa, using private (meaning non-governmental) businesses as examples doesn't help your argument. Castncoot (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevant observation regarding the teams, but perhaps not the last word.

As I haven't formulated an argument yet, let alone expressed one, your assessing it seems... Um, words fail me actually. It seems to be either clairvoyance or stupidity. And you're certainly not stupid.

One Mexican peering out of haystack at Goofy trying to manhandle a large bull: "Aiieeh! He ees either thee world's bravest man or thee world's beegest fool!" Second Mexican beside him: "Nobody could be so beeg a fool." Third Mexican : "Then eet is bravery." Wasn't Carl Barks brilliant?

Set my mind at rest. Exactly which argument doesn't this help? Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The argument that one's factual, adminstrative location somehow isn't important. We're getting nowhere here, and I feel like my time resources are getting wasted, so this will be my last comment on the subject for now. Don't look for the rare examples first, look for the common ones first instead. There are hundreds of businesses in Bergen County which carry the name "New Jersey this," or "Garden State (NJ's nickname) that." The New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway, the two biggest roads in New Jersey, entirely public and operated by the Government of New Jersey, run through Bergen County. Might you find a rare business carrying the term "New York" in its title, perhaps as either a carryover or a branch of a business based in New York? Sure. But keep WP:UNDUE in mind. That's all for now from me. Castncoot (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I should be honest here, even at the risk of personal attack. I also feel that you are wasting your time and resources, and mine, and those of some others. This is not intended as an attack on you personally, it's about an issue that affects the oppose faction and their arguments generally. I feel that anyone who sets out to gain a no consensus decision, as you and others appear to be doing, is wasting everyone's time. The aim of all Wikipedia talk pages is to build consensus, and I have said that several times before, and have yet to be challenged on it. But it seems to be being ignored.

Agree that there are There are hundreds of businesses in Bergen County which carry the name "New Jersey this," or "Garden State (NJ's nickname) that" etc.. I'm surprised if it is so few.

Agree that areas concerned are in New Jersey. No argument at all there. But they can also be referred to as parts of New York. So I'm not suggesting that New Jersey Daffy Dills (if there is such a florist) has made a mistake and should be called New York Daffy Dills instead. What I'm saying is that the shop next door, Roses 4 U (New York), hasn't made a mistake either. Nobody seeing these two signs together in one street, or even on the same shop, would think that somebody had made such an obvious mistake that they had three heads - except perhaps to argue for a no consensus that there is any ambiguity decision on Wikipedia. Even that is a stretch.

But disagree that I have ever suggested, or ever will suggest, that one's factual, adminstrative location somehow isn't important (there's an i missing I know, but I'm in a quandry whether to put it in... if I do I'm misquoting you, if I don't it's another Jerseyabs). This is just the HLJC discussion all over again.

And there's no significant support here on Wikipedia for considering it more important than primary topic, or even as a factor (important or otherwise) in determining primary topic. There isn't even any desire on the part of its proponents to discuss including it in the PT guidelines. We all know it's a dead duck.

And you really should stop promoting it, by whatever name. That is a waste of time. Yours included. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)