Overturn to no consensus(or relist): Both sides have made valid arguments focusing on different aspects ofWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Some have focused on the "page view" aspect of PTOPIC by stating that the album has the most views, where others like myself argue that the album doesn't meet the long-term significance aspect of PTOPIC because other uses, likethe phraseandthe song,also have enough prominence to where there isn't a primary topic.
In addition, I want to take note that all three active discussions currently atWP:MR(as well as the latest one in May) were closed by SSTflyer. As stated inWP:RMNAC,non-admins should not be closing contentious discussions like this, so it's mind boggling to me how anon-admincan make so many controversial decisions when they haven't even been vetted by the community as an admin to do so. I think a moratorium on SSTflyer closing discussions, or at the very least an admonishment, is in order. I believe that this has crossed the line into the disruptive category (not just at RM, there have been a couple bad NAC's at RFD in the past week+ alone and probably elsewhere, but these are the only two places I'm active). --Tavix(talk)15:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist.I support the move because the astonish factor is probably low and albums are usually considered more prominent than title tracks. But consensus didn't agree with me.Nohomersryan(talk)15:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus)(edit: Would also be support relist) - There are good arguments on both sides of the requested move, but this is clearly no consensus and should have been closed as such. As a reminder to the closer, in cases when the consensus isn't clear, it can often be more helpful to!vote and thus make it easier for the next likely closure to come along.PaleAqua(talk)15:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist.Consensus is not clear in the discussion, but a relist may help with clarifying consensus as a relist had yet to be performed on this move request.Steel1943(talk)15:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also okay with "Overturn to no consensus", but I'd rather see if more time could either clarify consensus or even see if another editor may bring up a point which I could understand and agree with that condradicts my comment in the discussion.Steel1943(talk)15:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer – oppose voters have not provided any evidence to support their claims, while support voters have made a substantiated argument. I still think that the consensus at the time was to move. I do not mind a relist, since the last two oppose votes are added late during the discussion.SSTflyer13:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
I believe the page move from "Roman Catholicism in Afghanistan" to "Catholic Church in Afghanistan" was premature, and I wish to restore the original name (no reply was made on closer's talk page discussing this move). There was no strong consensus for the move, and the arguments cited a non-binding precedent, that of the "Roman Catholic Church"to"Catholic Church",as well as an incorrect argument that" Catholic Church in Afghanistan "is more" appropriate ". For reasons elaborated on in this essay:WP:Roman Catholic,"Roman Catholic" is an appropriate contemporary name for the church in union with the pope, and may be freely used when there is ambiguity. Several similar name changes were recently opposed by consensus, thus showing that there is no consensus currently for all Catholic related articles to strictly avoid "Roman" in the title.
While there are likely some cases where this change would be appropriate, in the Afghanistan article, it is disruptive, and introduces more ambiguity and inconsistency than the proposal corrected. The parent article for the series,Religion in Afghanistanuses the "Roman Catholic" convention, as do several templates and other Afghan religion articles. The history section for Catholic Church in Afghanistan also discussed the "Nestorian" church (AKA theApostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East), which is unaffiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, and the article rename adds ambiguity that is difficult to correct without the "Roman" modifier in the title.
The name change introduces in consistency and ambiguity in the series, that could either be corrected by carefully editing each linked page, or by simply reverting the name change. Thank you. --Zfish118⋉talk06:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer– I think there is sufficient consensus in the RM discussion for a move. This MRV is started by the lone oppose voter in that discussion.SSTflyer14:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.This was a reasonable close perWP:RMCI.There was only one opposing response compared to three who supported the change, and I'd regard their arguments as stronger.--Cúchullaint/c15:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse– I've been casually involved in a few similar moves from "Roman Catholicism in…" to "Catholic Church in…" articles and I see no controversy in this one. —JFGtalk07:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Close is well within RMCI. Discussion lasted a little more than 12 days and looks like the last new commenter was about 4 days before it closed. So I'm not convinced that the close was premature.PaleAqua(talk)05:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
New York (state)–Overturn and relist.This is a very difficult case, both procedurally and factually. It is clear in this review that there is a clear consensus among participants opposed to this reuslt. By my count, there are 13 to overturn and 9 to relist, compared to 7 endorsing the result, and one to endorse or relist. As a practical matter, articles of high significance and high visibility should not be moved casually. This is an important question which requires the most thorough and openly advertised discussion possible. Based on my experience with the high-profile moves ofChelsea ManningandHillary Clinton,I am reverting this move and preparing a subpage atTalk:New York/July 2016 move requestfor a new discussion, to be opened for community opinion on the proposal seven days from today. Proponents of the move will have until then to assemble whatever argument and evidence they feel makes the most compelling case for the proposed move. Opponents of the move will likewise have until then to assemble argument and evidence against the proposed move. Since there are multiple possible move outcomes (the state as primary, the city as primary, the disambiguation page at the base page name, some other setup), participants should be asked to weigh in firstly on whether there is consensus to change the status quo, and secondly, if there is a consensus that the status quo should be changed, on what that change should be.bd2412T21:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
The move was closed with no visible weighing of the reasoning behind either supporting or opposing. There was (as I see it) no consensus, and the closer agreed. Then the closer changed her mind, picked a destination, and moved the page. There may well be better arguments for supporting the move than opposing it--but A) that's hardly clear from the discussion, and B) the closer did not seem to point out any of those arguments for the move. There was plenty--plenty--of room for more discussion. With no disrespect at all for the closer, I still propose arelisting.RedSlash02:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the beginning of the discussion, I considered three different possible closures. I think the choice between these three closures is within the discretion of the closer. Any of the three closures would cause some editors to be unhappy.SSTflyer02:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist'at the very least for fairness. Plenty of people have gotten to the discussion after it closed and it wasn't properly advertised to those from the New York area. Yeah, "descetion" is a terrible way to close a discussion, a closer should be weighing consensus, or in this case, a lack of one, not making up scenarios and choosing one of them.I also think anoverturn to no consensuswould be fair as that's really what the result should have been.--Tavix(talk)04:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)edited: 15:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:We need to be careful not tocanvasany particular group, in my opinion. There seems a distinct possibility that there's a dialect or dialect-like problem here... that whether you think first of NYC or of the US State when you hearNew Yorkout of context is influenced by where you live (something like this). Not sure how to best address that, but I preach caution. Disclosure: I have been heavily involved in the RM.Andrewa(talk)06:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But at least someone could have notified the two relevant wikiprojects,WP:NYandWP:NYC,and in the former, the article is rated as "top" -importance. I see notifications on neither. And as a member of both wikiprojects and a resident of NY State, I feel insulted that I wasn't given enough time to be able to!vote, and the fact that none of the WikiProject members were notified by a post on the wikiproject discussion board.Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium(talk)15:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus)(edit: also would supportRelist). A stronger consensus is needed to change away from a long-standing name.PaleAqua(talk)06:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of rearguing the close on this page I would also support relisting, though in practice closing as no consensus would allow a new RM to be opened immediately for a similar effect.PaleAqua(talk)17:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.The second close analysis was most impressive, and the verdict followed logically. Disclosure: It's also exactly what I was arguing for, at some length, in the RM.Andrewa(talk)06:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I think it was the correct decision and that if we re-open it for another week or so we will have the same outcome. The arguments that the state is not the primary topic for the term "New York" were significantly stronger than those in opposition. However, the closure was not particularly well articulated for a discussion of this significance – you have to know that people are going to try and pick holes in what you write when closing a RM like this. I don't think there is any problem with relisting, but I am bit sceptical of some of the comments here and on the talk page about a lack of notification – if you care about a page put on it on your watchlist and if you care about a certain WikiProject (in this case New York) watch that project's Article Alerts where this was advertised all week. In sum, eitherendorse or relistwould be fine by me.Jenks24(talk)08:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist.The discussion was only closed hastily as it was going nowhere, i.e. no consensus was formed. That's the only reason a move discussion should be prematurely closed. There was no "rough consensus" towards moving, as some would claim. Even if my opinion on this issue may now be more towards the disambig, a full discussion and proper close needs to take place.ɱ(talk)·vbm·coi)14:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this. You say it was closed hastily because there was no consensus, but then say that's the only reason a RM should be closed prematurely? Regardless, it was closed after the allotted time was up, even if it may have been wise to give it a little longer if only to stifle some of the complaints that are inevitable with a change like this. There was certainly no malicious or duplicitous intent on the part of the closer.Jenks24(talk)15:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're right, however it was finally closed with a supposed "rough consensus" to change the title, even though the discussion was still ongoing and small enough to warrant more time. So only if the discussion was going nowhere and a no consensus close was the final result would it be justified this early.ɱ(talk)·vbm·coi)16:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist.There is no consensus for this move, especially given the short duration of the move discussion and the controversy under which it fell. It should be relisted for more comments, especially since the community is changing a name that has stood for at least a decade.Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium(talk)15:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I'm going to put a more thorough and detailed response here in due course, which will likely be along the same lines asJenks24,that the closure does represent the policy based consensus of the discussion, and that while a relisting would be unlikely to add much more that hasn't already been said, it could provide more closure for people. In the mean time, I should remind people that move discussions, as with other consensus building processes on WP, is not a vote, and the fact that the supports and opposes are split does not mean there is no consensus. If 5 people make reasoned supports, while 5 others post opposes that make no sense, as objectively assessed by a closer, then the supports have the consensus. People should keep that in mind when assessing whether to endorse or overturn this close. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)17:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse:the conclusion reached by the closer was logical and based upon analysis of the strengths and weakness of the arguments made on both sides. The debate clearly demonstrated that there was no consensus on what theWP:PRIMARYTOPICof 'New York' should be and it therefore logically follows that the page should be a DAB page given the high profile nature of both the State and the City (as well as other less high profile topics). The decision to apply for a move review is clearly demonstrated by those who misunderstand how consensus works: disagreement does not always mean sticking with the status quo. This is particularly true in in primary topic discussions when a move results in the disputed term being a DAB page which is a neutral position.Ebonelm(talk)19:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the move needs to be based on a consensus to move, not based on a consensus that there is no consensus. Also, no consensus,by policywould result in the original name being returned:Link 1,Link 2.I don't know what you're talking about disagreement leading to a so-called neutral position. That's no neutral position, it's what a minority of editors agreed upon and implemented. This is ridiculous.ɱ(talk)·vbm·coi)19:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a thing as negative consensus as well as positive consensus. Just because you didn't like the move doesn't mean you didn't actually contribute to the establishment of the idea that there was a good reason to change the title. You yourself just stated that there was a "consensus that there is no consensus" on what theWP:PRIMARYTOPICshould be, which demonstrates why New York should be a DAB page. This has been a long term dispute (although the title itself has remained stable) about what the primary topic is.WP:TITLECHANGESstates that "consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title" this has clearly been demonstrated. As for claiming it was a minority of editorsWP:DEMOCRACYclearly demonstrates why just counting participants isn't a valid approach.Ebonelm(talk)19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was no consensus to move the page, it's as simple as that. I also stated above that I'm perhaps more in favor of the disambig, so consider my relist vote not based on my initial vote but on doing things the right way here.ɱ(talk)·vbm·coi)20:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closer assessed that there was consensus that New York State is not the primary meaning ofNew York.Given that, a move was the only valid close. Relisting may change this; I'm skeptical, I think positions are now pretty strongly held and that policy and evidence support this (rough) consensus, but I could be wrong.Andrewa(talk)20:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading of the rationale above, the MR was raised to recommend a reopen and relist, in the hope of a clearer result.Andrewa(talk)21:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to no consensus).
Firstly, the discussion reads as no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus support for the status quo, but no case that the status quo is "wrong", and so no imperative to impose a creative solution so as to move on.
Secondly, the close was terrible. Smacking ofWP:Supervote,as well as explicit indecisiveness, it conveys an arbitrariness of the result and seriously undermines confidence in the RM process. Another closer could have very easily come to a different result.
Aside, I have a rising concern that the holders of the newly created pagemover permission now no longer feel constrained by the sensible advice ofWP:NAC,and are over-easily straying into controversial closes beyond their experience level. --SmokeyJoe(talk)23:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please OVERTURN.There is no consensus for this move, which is disastrous to say the least. The status quo with its appropriate hatnotes has served wonderfully for many years. Why the rush to move this page all of a sudden, especially with NO consensus to do so? What bothers me even further is the sneaky and subterfugal manner in which this was done. I, one of the primary editors of this page (never mind where I am actually based), wasnot even informedabout this intention or discussion on my talk page; I found out onlyafterthe page had been moved. Clearly this was executed with an agenda, and this is alarming. This move was wrong on many levels and needs to be overturned ASAP. The page should be returned to the title "New York", as has been served well as such for many years.Castncoot(talk)14:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, there is no requirement to notify individual editors on their talk pages when a move request is proposed. It's great that you've contributed heavily to this article, on an important topic, so kudos for your efforts, but perWP:OWN,that fact doesn't mean you have a special veto or more right to contribute than anyone else. The move request took place right there on the talk page of the article, so it was hardly "sneaky and subterfugal". Anyway, maybe this will get an extra week or two of listing, and you can put your views at the RM, but if you really think that New York state is a primary topic over New York city, then you'll need to come up with some solid reasons why, or other policy reasons for the status quo. Because "it's always been like this" and "the move is disastrous" don't really stack up as valid reasons I'm afraid, and oppose votes along those lines can't override the existing policy and evidence based consensus as it was closed at the RM. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)15:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully in return, how many people actually look at a Talk page routinely? I, like others, have been busy in real life! Does this mean that I wouldn't have a significant contribution to a discussion about a proposed move? For this to have been carried out over a day or so certainlywassneaky and subterfugal - I'm telling it like it is! At minimum, this process should have taken place over a couple of weeksbefore moving it.As far as substance, to relegate the highly Wiki-searched entry"New York"to adisambiguationpage defies all common sense. Appropriate hatnotes have served very well over the years. "New York City" has its own page, as it should. "New York" has served perfectly well as the state benchmark for years. The article ledes have also accounted for this disambiguation process very well throughout the years. Why should there be a comparison between the two in the first place? The move should be overturned and reopened for a discussion in which many more people are evenawareof this discussion.Castncoot(talk)15:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments would have more credence if they were accurate. The discussion was opened on 9 June and closed on 18 June. The move was then made on 20 June. This is hardly "a day or so".Jenks24(talk)16:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately, nobody gave me the common decency and courtesy of informing me of this discussion, despite my being one of the top editors of this page. Is there arulethat theyhaveto? Of course not. But is that how we really want Wikipedia to operate? Or do we want to get the best possible result, which includes input from both people who have high topic experience as well as from random editors? In my experience, I have routinely been informed on my own Talk page that a significant such discussion is taking place regarding some other page. Therefore, I've been unsuspecting of this situation until after the move was executed. In any case, a very serious mistake has been made with this move, and I believe it needs to be corrected as soon as possible rather than moving in bad faith to etch it in stone. Best,Castncoot(talk)20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist.I agree that there is no consensus here, and would support a relisting. FWIW I opposed the request, and I definitely disagree with the fact that the move was carried out even after opposition was raised and the closer consented to a relist.Nohomersryan(talk)18:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturnto "no consensus." At best, the closer took a simple head count to weigh consensus; at worst, they made a supervote. In either case, i don't believe there was any consensus to move the page. The primary topic argument made by those favoring the request was done so with anecdotal evidence only --no empirical evidence was presented -- and our definition of primary topic isnot what first comes to mind.The closer also seemed to ignore theWP:IAR/WP:NOTBROKEarguments made in opposition to the move, assigning them no weight despite the fact that the former is a policy.Calidum¤20:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A simple head count is exactly the opposite of what the closer did. If you just add up votes, it does look like no consensus. ButWP:RMCIcalls on closers to be much more discerning than that, pick out the policy arguments from the discussion, and give those more weight thanWP:IDONTLIKEITvotes. It's telling that not one person seeking to overturn this move has made any sort of argument that New York state isWP:PRIMARYTOPICover New York city (or if they have, I've missed it, and would appaeciate hearing about it). The support argument was considerably stronger than the oppose argument when cross checking it against policy. And your citation ofWP:IARmisrepresents that pillar.If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore itis what it says. Keeping New York state at a title which is not supported by our policies, just because we've always done it that way, is rather the opposite of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. —Amakuru(talk)12:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a gross misrepresentation of what the prevailing argument in opposition to the move was. The reason why people such as I opposed was that using a prominent hatnote at the state's article meant people had no problem quickly finding the NYC article even if they had searched simply for "New York." Thus, placing the dab page at the base name is not an improvement to the encyclopedia because it doesn't make it easier to find the city article while harder to find the state.Calidum¤17:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that is in itself a misrepresentation of whatWP:TWODABSsays. Where neither topic is primary we don't arbitrarily pick one, just to reduce clicks on that but not the other. We use a dab page. If reducing average clicks was our only goal, we would never have no-primary-topic dabs for any subject, we'd always pick one page to be primary. But WP has never worked that way. Note as well that since the move, when you type "New York" in the search box, two very clear options come up on the search box, "New York (state)" and "New York City". This is much clearer than the previous state where "New York" and "New York City" would have come up. —Amakuru(talk)19:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturnas "No consensus". I agree with Caldium. The admin seems to have made a "supervote" I've seen these types of "decisions" play out in the past. Admins come and make up their own mind. not on the merit of the comments. but by the way that they would have "voted" if they had taken part in the discussion. Any number of admins mat have made a different decision, which is why this should be closed as no consensus.--JOJHutton12:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... @Amakuru - New York State is a higher-level jurisdiction than New York City, and New York StatecontainsNew York City. New York City is one municipality of and within New York State. Thus, your policy argument does not pass the litmus test. This isexactly whyhigh topic experience is important for such a major move, and I'm not convinced the closer had this. This move needs to be overturned in order for Wikipedia's credibility to survive. I am extremely disappointed at the manner in which this was carried out - 1) No consensus whatsoever; 2) lack of informing editors with high topic experience on their Talk page that this was happening; 3) apparent lack of topic experience on the part of the closer himself/herself; and 4) suspicion of possible Supervote execution;Castncoot(talk)02:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed now that the number of page views for this article has dropped to less than 4K per day, compared to 8-10K per day average with the previous title, before the move. I plead emergently to the administrator who closed this discussion to revert the page title to its original "New York" form immediately while continuing this re-opened discussion. Obviously this move has been extremely deleterious and has caused and is continuing to cause great and ongoing harm to the article, an obviously unintended consequence. The reason the number of page views has dropped so dramatically is that typing in "new york" takes one (ludicrously and unjustifiably) to adisambiguationpage, where the reader gets hung up for one reason or another. This is unjustified and needs to be reverted immediately while this discussion is continuing, to stop the ongoing harm to the article and the gross disservice to Wikipedia readers who were beautifully directed all of these years to the correct New York State and City articles simply with well-written hatnotes and ledes.Please!!! ***Castncoot(talk)01:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that typing in "New York" or "NY" (i.e. with caps) is redirecting to the State article, but "new york", "ny", or "New york" direct to the dab page. I have requested redirects of these other entities to the State article. These should have no bearing on the ongoing discussion but should stanch some of the bleeding caused by this misguided move.Castncoot(talk)03:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have some double-redirects that the bots which fix these will eventually get to. I'm disappointed to see editors focused on this. The focus should be on correcting links to [[New York]] which are intended to link to the article about the city.wbm1058(talk)18:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also here in Wikipedia,New York Cityis considered one of theRegions of New York.Please see this clearly demarcated on the NYC article underneath the infobox. This move would necessitate changing that as well, which really would be also highly disruptive. This move has been unnecessary and detrimental on many levels.Castncoot(talk)04:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following what the problem is here. "Regions of New York" intuitively implies the state, because the city does not have "regions". It just has boroughs and neighborhoods.wbm1058(talk)18:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your confusion. The bottom line is this - New York State is a higher-level jurisdiction than New York City and contains New York City as a municipality (and according to Wikipedia, a classified region) within the State. It does not matter whatyouSPECULATEis going through a reader's mind when he or she searches "New York". The move was clearly made in error and needs to be reverted ASAP to the status quo both to restore the credibility of Wikipedia as well as the many thousands of daily pageviews to the State article which for whatever reason have disappeared because of the move.Castncoot(talk)02:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Castncoot,are you linking to WP:CRYSTALBALL because it defines the everyday word "speculate", or is there some piece of that which is relevant here? I don't see how the "What Wikipedia is not" policy is applicable to the process of determining article titles. That policy applies to aspects of the content of articles, but not their titles.New Yorkfails theprecisioncriterion because it forces us tospeculateas to whether the city or the state is intended.
WP:CRITERIAis the policy that applies to article titles. Specifically, the title should unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Though we use hatnotes to clarify the topic, they can't help with the search box problem, where the Wikimedia software only shows the titles. This is why I moved it.
I view what topicNew Yorkshould (re)direct to as a separate issue, which is governed byWP:PRIMARYTOPIC.There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics. Thepage view stats,one measure ofusage,favor the city. It seems likely there are hundreds of mislinks toNew Yorkwhich are intended for the city. That's another measure ofusage,and mislinks actually do hurt Wikipedia's credibility to some extent.Long term significancedoesn't seem to distinguish these in my view. Both the city and the state equally have "long-term significance".
While those two major aspects are the most commonly discussed criteria for defining primary topics, the policy does not limit us to just those two. I believe we agree that another criterion comes into play here:
I'm taking the liberty to use your words... "New York State is a higher-level jurisdiction than New York City, and New York State contains New York City. New York City is one municipality of and within New York State."When two governmental jurisdictions share the same name, the higher-level jurisdiction generally is assumed to be the primary topic.Do you agree with that?wbm1058(talk)05:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry,Wbm1058,but that's a nonsense. I don't know why it comes up every time this is discussed, as if it settles the matter. Primary topic is determined by long term significance, common usage, and what users are most likely to be searching for. "Higher" and "lower" jurisdictions play no part in it, if the other conditions are met or not met. That notion has already been rejected withWashington(where the city and state enjoy co-primary status), and as you probably recall from last year withLhasawe ended up determining that the city was more prominent than its surrounding prefecture of the same name. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)07:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Washingtonis not directly applicable to this (minor) primary topic criterion, because the state is not a higher-level jurisdiction with control over theDistrict of Columbia.They are closer to peer jurisdictions, as for example, both send delegates to presidential nominating conventions.Lhasais an excellent counterpoint though (I should have remembered that one!). There was a lengthy, and somewhat contentious debate on that, as many thought thatLhasa (prefecture-level city)should be primary. The Chinese terminology is counter-intuitive to many Westerners: a "prefecture-level city" is more like a US state (a prefecture is roughly equivalent to a state). This one is even stranger as there is no definitive lower-level jurisdiction named Lhasa.Chengguan District, Lhasais used as the best approximation of what is considered to be "Lhasa", even though large parts of Chengguan District are rural, and there are some urban or suburban parts of "metro Lhasa" which are in other districts (districts are the lower-level jurisdiction to the prefecture-level city). We also run counter to Chinese-language Wikipedia in that their "Lhasa" article (zh: Lạp tát thị) is aboutLhasa (prefecture-level city).I recall now that the case of New York, city vs. state, was brought up in the discussion atTalk:Lhasa § Proposed move.Also there is the case ofSão Paulo,the most populous state in Brazil – and its largest city. So this "higher-level jurisdiction" criterion may be in conflict with the usage criterion, and then that conflict needs to be resolved through discussion. "Higher-level jurisdiction" wins out in Wikipedias where there is one dominant country where a language is spoken: Chinese in China and Portuguese in Brazil. We are at this crossroads because the US does not have similarly dominant control over the English language.wbm1058(talk)12:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wbm1058(talk), yes, I do believe that the higher-level jurisdiction,if it contains the lower-level jurisdiction as one among other geopolitical subentities within it,should maintain primary topic status. I also believe this was discussed and hashed out years ago - hence, NYS being titled "New York" and New York City being entitledNew York City.If anything, theSao Paulopair needs to be fixed, rather than this one. (Also, the difference in pageviews between NYC and NYS, prior to the move, was not even a 2:1 ratio; so it's not like we're talking about an order of magnitude here.) Another uniquely convenient feature here is that people indeed commonly refer to the City as "New York City", which essentially auto-disambiguates the City from State. On the other hand, nobody writes "New York (state)" in a news article, for example. "The electoral vote in New York..." for example, obviously refers to the State. Sometimes common sense has to reign as the "highest-jurisdiction" policy of all, whereas people often get so wrapped up in trying to figure out how to contort a square peg into a triangular policy argument that they lose sight of the big picture. This has led misguidedly to finding a problem for a solution in this case. Please restore the status quo (and sanity) in order to reverse the ongoing significant harm to this article while a philosophical discussion continues. Best,Castncoot(talk)06:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturnas "no consensus", though I could alsosupportrelistingas I think some good points have been raised (mostly after the so-called "rough consensus" was reached).WP:RMNACallows page move request closures by non-admins only in the case of "clear consensus". This discussion, and the continued discussion on the talk page, show that there is nothing of the sort. No attempt whatsoever was made to include those editors that would be most affected by this decision (notifying WikiProjects and top editors) and the idea that this would be "canvassing" doesn't pass the smell test - there is no way of knowing how individual editors within the WikiProjects would feel on this issue. While it is true that WP should be edited with an international audience in mind, we should remember that "international"includesthe locals, rather than excluding them.Antepenultimate(talk) 15:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Updated vote.Antepenultimate(talk)14:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I would encourage the closer of this discussion, and everyone who endorses the original RM closure because it nobly considered only the "policy-based" arguments, to review the original discussion carefully. AlthoughWP:PRIMARYTOPICis linked by supporters (who don't even form consensus for the "New York (state)" solution, many were seeking to have the city placed as primary), none that I can see actually make any effort to address the "long-term significance" and "usage" criteria with strong evidence (this is true for opposers as well, but the onus is on supporters to show a clear need for a move from the status quo that was working fine). Instead, we get hunches and unqualified assertions; several supporters present as evidence that the city is what they think of when they hear "New York" (an early example that set the tone), and several others cite PRIMARYTOPIC without giving any evidence at all (have to assume then that it is primary in their minds, leading them to such a conclusion). This is in clear opposition to theWP:NWFCTMguidance found within the PRIMARYTOPIC guideline they are themselves citing. The only other evidence presented is a simple Google search, where the first result iswww.newyork.com,which is a promotional page for city tourism (and itself uses "NYC" and "New York City" in their prose). Just some thoughts; I do not believe that this was clearly a "policy-based" decision as has been asserted frequently, but rather a mess all around and a half-baked discussion in general that deserves to be re-listed at the very least.Much interesting discussion has taken place after the closure, and I think this deserves more time being discussed during a formal process (this MRV isspecificallynotwhere such discussion should take place,though you'd never know it reading this page), so I've changed my vote to "relist". I agree with others that have suggested that final closure of this long-controversial topic should be accomplished by several uninvolved admins.Antepenultimate(talk)14:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, and I agree that perhaps better evidence of common usage is needed, although looking at Google results for books and general search was mentioned and is a pretty good indicator in my view. And yes the onus is on those seeking to make the change, but notwithstanding that I'm not sure it was too much dispute that the state and the city are at least equal in primacy by the common usage and LTS criteria. The oppose vote typically focused on other issues like higher level jurisdictions and reducing mouse clicks. Nobody has presented any convincing argument that NY state is the common usage or LTS topic across the English speaking world for the term "New York". Or if there was such a convincing argument I didn't see it. —Amakuru(talk)17:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the MRV is to discuss the original move discussion's closure, and I don't believe the mountains of discussion that came afterward have much bearing (but could save us a lot of time during a re-list). Google books and g-hits discussion (without any numbers, just a "see what the results refer to" assurance) were not mentioned (with the exception of the almost comically weak "newyork.com" evidence) until after the original close to "No Consensus". The fact that the closure was so easily modified after a few individuals piped up afterwards is more evidence of just how unclear the original discussion's results truly were. Also, I would like to know how any Google searches are eliminating false positives from the fact that a search for "New York" will also turn up results for "New YorkCity "-ifthe state is more frequently referred to without a modifier (indicating possible primacy), it would actually be at a disadvantage in a simple search. Not saying such a search is impossible, just that I wouldn't know how to start constructing it.The thing is, I'm pretty well convinced at this point that perhaps there is no primary topic here, and this dab solutionmaybe best. But the original procedure was bungled in about a half dozen ways, causing a lot of completely unnecessary drama and ill-will. Change of this magnitude (plus the amount of manual work its implementation will require) deserves better, and I also believe that there needs to be greater focus on what the scope of the change is (Locality article titles?Category trees?) in addition to a better demonstration that the problems caused by the former set-up are worthy of the work needed to 'fix' it. Frankly I don't think I'm alone in thinking that it would be a waste of time if the only purpose is to be lock-step in line with policy, but that's just an opinion, of course. All of this could be addressed by re-listing.Antepenultimate(talk)21:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does everyone see the current template at the top of theNew Yorkpage informing people of a move closure review? Why was a similar template never placed during the period of time when a potential move was being discussed??? Much of the outrage being expressed on this page is that peoplenever even had an opportunity to voice their opinion before the move was executed,simply becausethey were not even aware of a move discussion untilafterthis move was performed.As far as any dab page being involved, I think that is unfortunately an option with adverse consequences. Human nature and attention span are such that many readers will be lost once when they are directed to a dab page. At a time where Wikipedia viewership may be declining, the last thing needed would be to lose thousands of people at a dab page. I would rather have people continue to be directed to the State page and be greeted with a clear hatnote and be one click away from the City page if even needed -versusbeing one click awayanywayfrom a dab page, which distracts a significant portion of viewers and may lose them for good. Why do we even have disambiguating hatnotes in the first place??? The one thing I don't see a willingness among the supporters of the move (who are significantly in the minority, by the way) address is to approach a solution which incorporates basic common sense.Castncoot(talk)22:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many people believed that it was not working. And they gave policy reasons why they believed that in the discussion. That's why there was a consensus to change it. —Amakuru(talk)19:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturnwith no prejudice against a relist. This was quite a mess to read through, but it didn't exactly have a clear consensus to move.Snuggums(talk/edits)18:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relistas a prematurely closed discussion. More effort should be made to come to a clearer consensus. Policy-based arguments made after the close should be taken into consideration. Exceptional decisions of this sort often need more time for the discussion to play out. Generally we need a consensus that there is a primary topic to have a primary topic. The default if there is no consensus primary topic should be to disambiguate. –wbm1058(talk)13:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another relevant example, from the US:Honoluluis a "Lhasa-like" case, because there is no clear jurisdictional boundary that definitively defines the geographical boundaries of "Honolulu". PerhapsHonolulu CCDcomes closest. The article about the higher-level jurisdiction is actually atHonolulu County,which is aconsolidated city-county– the city and county of Honolulu share the same jurisdiction. Perhaps the equivalent for New York would be making theNew Yorkarticle about Manhattan. So why hasn'tHonolulu Countybeen moved toHonolulu?Another unexplored line of discussion that might help lead us to consensus. A contrasting example isMarion County, Indianawhich is consolidated withIndianapolis.There is a strong rationale for keeping them separate though. There are four "excluded cities" includingSpeedway, Indianawhich remain autonomous from the consolidated city-county. There are no autonomous jurisdictions within Honolulu County. There are CDPs such asPearl City, Hawaii,but these are all under the jurisdiction of the City and County of Honolulu.wbm1058(talk)16:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058:given your thoughts about needing a consensus to establish that there's a primary topic, would you think that after a relisting this a suitable case for a panel close, or other remedy similar to what happened atTalk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request?My worry with this is that despite the fact that many of us think there is a consensus to move when you take policies into account, this may not be recognised by a future closer (following relist) due to the sheer weight of oppose votes defending the status quo. That would be similar to what happened many times over with Hillary Clinton. This is a perennial request which nobody up to now has had the boldness to call as moved, despite the fact that by almost any objective standard there is no PTOPIC. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)09:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My premise is that if this was just decided by American editors, Ireland would be a country. It seems to me that the "higher-level jurisdiction" criterion has been used here, i.e. the island is at a "higher-level" than the country.
So yes, some process equivalent to that which decided the status of Ireland might be appropriate. I don't have a lot of experience with such processes and decisions.
It would be helpful if the policy-based arguments were just laid out in a neutral-POV manner, when such process was initiated, so we could avoid some of the "crystal ball" type of arguments. I know we don't like to admit that we vote here, but I don't think policy clearly can decide this. It comes down to whether the "usage" criterion ofWP:PRIMARYTOPICshould get more or less weight than the "higher-level jurisdiction" criterion – a criterion that the policy allows for, but which hasn't really been spelled out until now. In the end, it may come down to a vote on which criterion controls this title. –wbm1058(talk)11:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Irelandgets nearly as many page views asIreland:compare page views.It's kind of "eire"how closely those two track each other. I have to think that more than a handful of readers are stopping by at the island's hatnote on their way to the article about the Republic. This is arguably worse than New York... at least the city and the state both begin with" N ", but the Republic doesn't show up in the search-box suggestions because it begins with" R "rather than" I ".
Personally, I would be fine with redirectingIreland,which clearly violates theprecisionWP:CRITERIA,toIreland (island),so that we can more easily identify and fix what must surely be hundreds of mislinks.
Just to clarify, theislandof Ireland is not a jurisdiction. It carries no legal significance whatsoever (at least currently; nobody knows what will happen in a post-Brexit future).Castncoot(talk)23:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The higher-level jurisdiction criterion, provided it geographically includes the lower-level jurisdiction, embodies an element of timelessness that reigns over a time-variant usage metric; this is perhaps the most significant policy argument of all (after the common sense argument:). The number of page views can vary with different factors or news events, but New York State will, for the foreseeable future, include New York City and hundreds of other municipalities, includingBuffalo,Rochester,Albany,etc. These smaller municipalities' articles and their page views add up collectively, along with NYC's, to a significant numerical sum. New York State's population of 20 million includes the 8.6 million people of New York City, plus another 11+ million people, who should be allotted appropriate Wikipedic representational significance. Furthermore, New York City is classified as one of theRegions of New York,and "NY" is actually the official postal abbreviation for New York State. The status quo made sense to editors several years ago, and editors in 2016 are not fundamentally different. Best,Castncoot(talk)04:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I'm concerned with the increasing number of editors arguing that this should be overturned because there is "no consensus".WP:PRIMARYTOPICstates "consensusdetermines which article, if any, is the primary topic. "In other words, we need to reaffirm that there is a consensus that New York, the state is the primary topic. If there is no consensus that there is a primary topic, I don't see how we can have a primary topic. The default, when there is no consensus primary topic, should be to disambiguate. Personally, I continue to support PT for the state, in spite of the page-view evidence, on the basis of the" higher-level jurisdiction "concept, which in a way is a variant of" long-term significance "as they are both subjective determinations. I also continue to support the current title as necessary precision, to provide the needed assist to patrol for and avoid mislinks intended for the city.wbm1058(talk)00:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. Your "The default if there is no consensus primary topic should be to disambiguate" is a partial opinion / partial!vote, it does determine how to disambiguate, and there is exists a counter argument that in the outcome of no consensus, the status quo prevails. "No consensus" is very well supported by the observation that the discussion had not reached a consensus, and also by complaints of insufficient notification for such a significant rename. --SmokeyJoe(talk)00:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, there needs to be consensus tomovea page. If there is no consensus, the status quo remains, regardless of whether or not something is a primary topic. --Tavix(talk)01:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with this statement by Tavix. The move was made in grave error in the first place, and the closer needs to swallow his pride and revert it without delay.Castncoot(talk)03:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this argument is that it ignores thatconsensusis not just a vote; The arguments are viewed through the lens of policy. Nobody has produced one single shred of evidence that the state is the primary topic, so the arguments of those wanting to keep the state article at the undisambiguated name are all fatally flawed on this count, and need to be discounted in assessing the consensus.Andrewa(talk)04:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of consensus is not just a vote. It is the strength of the arguments, along with the support of existing guidelines and policy to represent a more global consensus. That said I do not see here a consensus for the move. Especially considering TWODAB and the arguments brought up against the move. A long time standing name is of itself a strong argument and needs to particularly strong argument to over come. I do not see that in this RM.PaleAqua(talk)06:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa, perhaps you have not read all of my comments above as to why the NYS is the primary topic here. I'm not going to repeat myself with regard to the reasons, you can read them. But the bottom line here is a lack of consensus to move a longstanding major article title in the first place.Castncoot(talk)16:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed waded through the discussion, in detail, but it's possible I have missed something. My conclusion is that although you and others have expressed and repeated at length an opinion that NY State is primary, there's not a shred of evidence to support this. It's made a lot more difficult by posts such as the one to which I'm replying, which starts out addressing the issue of primacy (a valid issue that needs to be explored), and then jumps to restating your position on a different aspect of the discussion. (I've been guilty of this myself I admit, but we should try to avoid it.)
You have every right not to repeat yourself. It leaves others in the position of having to also wade through the above to see whether I've indeed missed something. I wish them luck, and if anyone does find it, please tell me.Andrewa(talk)17:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Castncoot,thank you for your reply[1]below, repeating your earlier post[2]to which I did not reply as it seemed irrelevant and still does. I will reply below. (Next time, just thediffwill do fine.... do you see how I've linked to it?)Andrewa(talk)03:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the Ireland question (on which mytakeis requested above), I think the only on-topic statement I can make is that the issues in that discussion (in which I have participated, but not recently) are far more complex than those before us here, in my opinion. Is that sufficient?Andrewa(talk)17:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, in case you missed this para above, I've restated it here: "The higher-level jurisdiction criterion, provided it geographically includes the lower-level jurisdiction, embodies an element of timelessness that reigns over a time-variant usage metric; this is perhaps the most significant policy argument of all (after the common sense argument:). The number of page views can vary with different factors or news events, but New York State will, for the foreseeable future, include New York City and hundreds of other municipalities, includingBuffalo,Rochester,Albany,etc. These smaller municipalities' articles and their page views add up collectively, along with NYC's, to a significant numerical sum. New York State's population of 20 million includes the 8.6 million people of New York City, plus another 11+ million people, who should be allotted appropriate Wikipedic representational significance. Furthermore, New York City is classified as one of theRegions of New York,and "NY" is actually the official postal abbreviation for New York State. The status quo made sense to editors several years ago, and editors in 2016 are not fundamentally different. "Castncoot(talk)01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody explain to me why the State's pageviews have dropped to 5K per day since this misguided move (around the same asNew JerseyorMassachusetts,much smaller states) from 8 to 10K per day prior to the move, while the city's pageviews have remained steady?WP:PRECISION(or any other policy, for that matter) should not be deployed in such a way as to harm an article as this move has been doing. Is it really harmful for an unknowing reader worldwide to end up on the State page and be greeted with a clear hatnote? Or is it more harmful to have cut off 40-50% (thousands) of pageviews to this article in the name of trying to achieve "precision"? This move has proverbially thrown the baby out with the bath water and should be reverted fully, in no uncertain terms.Castncoot(talk) 01
35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I give you credit for voting "No primary meaning" atRequested Move: ROI → Ireland (state).I don't think Ireland is far more complex; they're different in the details but relatively simple in the final analysis. You won't find many shreds of evidence to support the island as primary topic either, because both are decided on subjective rationales, not on any scientific numbers-based (page views) analysis. Policy supports these subjective decisions to give "greater significance" to the island and the US state. I'm alternatively amused or annoyed when I see editors invoking WP:x, WP:y and P:z to justify their subjective decisions, without ever bothering to try to explain how those policies or guidelines are applicable. In the end, these just come down to votes, and you can't really weight them by "strength of argument". While those using page views and other stats for their rationale might seem to have stronger policy-based arguments, the "greater significance" / "higher level" side only needs their opinion to have an equally policy-based argument. I'm resigned to the need to get creative and find a way to fix the mislinks problem – so we don't say that the American beer is marketed asBudon the island of Ireland, and in Northern Ireland, too.wbm1058(talk)19:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
!We can be thankful that Nassau and Suffolk counties have not seceded from New York to form a 51st state namedLong Island;)
@Castncoot:I believe what you are seeing is the nature of the pageview statistics. Fromhere,New Yorkgot 3,588 views andNew York (state)got 4,456 views. I believe (and I am willing to be corrected if wrong) that views of theNew Yorkredirect don't count in the views ofNew York (state)from this tool (if they did, then the statistics for June 24th make no sense, as according to the tool,New Yorkreceived 4,308 views andNew York (state)received 3,521 views). What this means is that the article on the state received 3588+4456=8044 views, plus hits that came in from any of the other redirects to the page, which is around the historical average for the state's pageviews. -NiceguyedcGo Huskies!01:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not supposed to be rediscussing the move here, but perhaps that's relevant to whether the closer correctly assessed consensus. If so, it seems to just add evidence to support those who (yes like myself) believe that New York State isn't primary, and shouldn't be at thebase name.There's no way such evidence can support a relist, let alone an overturn, or am I missing something?Andrewa(talk)
The goal is to replace theNew Yorkbacklinks with more specific links, which is expected to onlymodestlyreduce page views of the state's article, by replacing these links with direct links toNew York Citywhere the intent of the link is obvious. –wbm1058(talk)15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replying toCastncoot01:35, 1 July 2016above: These arguments (which you have repeated several times above) seem to have no basis in guidelines or policy. Again, have I missed something? I did a search onhigher-level jurisdiction criterionin our Project and Helpnamespaces,and the only hit was your posts in this MR discussion. Is it there by some other name?Andrewa(talk)03:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@all: The fundamental point here is that consensus for the move was never achieved and so the move itself must be reverted, unless you believe that supervotes should dictate moves, especially with the waffling which occurred to get to this one.Castncoot(talk)18:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist but leaning strong endorse.I believe in theWP:RMprocess, and I believe in doing it right. It's clear that at the time of this close there was still ongoing discussion, not least because the addition of my "support" vote came after an earlier no consensus close, and nobody had replied by the time it was later changed to a moved close. So certainly I wouldn't deny a relist to those clamouring for one, so all discussion points can be aired. Having said that, though, asJenks24says above the close is definitely reasonable and indeed, I think, inevitable if the support and oppose votes in the discussion are viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.WP:CONSENSUSsays in its opening paragraph:Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.The latter part is important here. We should respect legitimate concerns, but while noting that the policies and guidelines must be respected. I'm welcome to be contradicted here if I've missed something, but the bulk of the "support" votes argue that neither of the two conditions forWP:PTOPICis met; i.e. that New York state does not enjoy more usage of the term "New York" in comparison to New York City, and also that it is not of greater long term significance; Google book and search results are used to back up this argument. Conversely, the principal reasons for "oppose" are (a) that this situation has existed for 10+ years, and is thereforeWP:NOTBROKEN,and (b) that the current setup is better because those seeking the state get where they want immediately, while those for the city are one click away either way, and (c) because NY state is a "higher level jurisdiction" than NY city, so is automatically primary. None of these arguments is supported by policy.WP:NOTBROKEN,which is anyway an essay rather than policy or guideline, actually saysIf there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it..But clearly there is evidence of a real problem, not in the eyes of those citing NOTBROKEN, but in the countless others who supported this move request. NOTBROKEN is to cover cases where everyone agrees it's not broken, not disputed cases. As for (b), if that argument were to be applied on Wikipedia then we'd never have disambiguation pages at base page locations at all. ButWP:DABis clear that we should disambiguate at the base page if there's no primary topic. On point (c), this rule is written nowhere, and a quick look atWashington (state)vsWashington, D.C.and alsoGeorgia (U.S. state)vsGeorgia (country)clearly show that it doesn't exist in practice either. In the latter case there have been a few attempts to moveGeorgia (country)toGeorgiaover the years, but all fail because no PTOPIC is seen between the country and the U.S. state, which is right in my view. The same applies here. Finally, I would like to request that if this is indeed relisted, when it comes to closing it should be assessed by one, or preferably a panel, of experienced RM closers as happened atTalk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move requestbecause I think there's a danger that a random passing by non-admin closer may miss the need to examine arguments rather than vote count, and we'll simply end up back here at MRV again. For a contentious request like this we need a result here that all sides can accept and trust. Thanks —Amakuru(talk)19:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said, I only hope people read it all!
But at the risk of repeating myself, the purpose of this MR is to review the close. It was a very good close of a very difficult RM. The only criticism possible is that perhaps it should have been left to an experienced admin. Look at the close, and ask yourselves, how many admins would have done as well? How much has subsequent discussion changed things? How much will more discussion at RM achieve?
There was never any prospect of consensus that the primary meaning ofNew YorkisNew York State.The sooner we face that reality and its consequences, the better.Andrewa(talk)23:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sooner we confront the reality that the move process was performed in a sneaky and subterfugal manner, with no legitimate consensus, the better. Wikipedia's credibility has unfortunately been tarnished by this mess, but reverting this misguided move would be able to undo a significant amount of that damage. And by the way, Washington State does not contain Washington, D.C.; Georgia the country doesn't contain Georgia the state; the island of Ireland is a geographical feature, while the Republic of Ireland is a geopolitical jurisdiction; and the Sao Paulo pair is the entity needing re-examination (btw, nobody refers to it as "Sao Paulo City", unlike "NYC" ).New York City,on the other hand, is bona fide progeny article ofNew York.Common sense is the ultimate policy which trumps all other artificially created policies. First principle: DO NO HARM, which, unfortunately, this mendacious move has done.Castncoot(talk)03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing your side of the argument no favours with your absurd bad faith accusations. This RM was conducted publicly and followed all standard practice. Please stop with these claims that have already been thoroughly debunked above; you are creating a toxic atmosphere.Jenks24(talk)12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- From a non-involved efitor: this is fairly cut and dry. There was not any consensus to close. The editor who closed it has made a string of borderline disruptive closes on controversial discussions, despite not being an admin. There really isn't a reason aside from "I like the result" to accept this move as being the valid extension of a consensus decision. Because of this, a decision to close here is invalid, irrespective of if the closer claimed consensus to keep or move. Relist and go from there.ToaNidhiki0504:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse– I commend the closer forhisher well-reasoned decision giving due weight to all policy-based arguments, although it obviously can't please everyone. Relisting is unlikely to bring any fresh insights into this years-long debate. If there is however a decision to relist, I would suggest appointing a three-person closing panel in order to cement the outcome and dispel any appearances of impropriety. In addition, I strongly condemn accusations of sneakiness and disruption bandied about byCastncootabove, which violateWP:AGFand smell ofownership+battlefieldmentality. —JFGtalk09:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I'm one of those editors who calls it as I see it. I make it a point routinely to assume good faith – until I sincerely believe that it's not. I've pointed out as many specific policy- and content-related arguments as anyone else on this page, and it's clear that this move was wrongly performed, without following the usual and customary practice of informing the people who would have had the most to say about it, that such a discussion was even underway, particularly including those whose opinions were very possibly to be in conflict with the agenda of the person who initiated this heavyweight move request. More ominously, there was no legitimate consensus upon which to close the move. Do you notice that the majority opinion here is to overturn this misguided move? I'm disheartened because I feel that Wikipedia has strayed from its ideals when I see sleight-of-hand maneuvers like this, and I'm apparently not the only one who feels this way, based on inferences from numerous comments above. I'm most interested that integrity needs to be restored to Wikipedia after this debacle. For that to happen, there's really no choice here but to overturn the move. The issue can always be revisited ad infinitum. If there were to be a true consensus among the many editors above and beyond to make such a move, of course I would accept it – but there is no such consensus. And if editors and admins over the past 10+ years have decided against such a move, then what makes editors in 2016 any superior?Castncoot(talk)22:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.Despite the earnest arguments, there really was no need to make this change. It did not simplify or add clarity; it did the opposite. -Xenxax(talk)13:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello@Wbm1058:I'm not really interested in adding to the long and tedious debate above, beyond voting my opinion to overturn. By "clarity" I mean not adding useless or unnecessary information, which I think is the case here by adding the qualifier "(state)" to the page for New York. -Xenxax(talk)14:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.I would support relisting if I thought that more discussion would change the outcome; however, I don't think that would happen. This is an obvious rename need that should have taken place long ago before it became as mountainous as it has become. The closer did a good job under the circumstances, although it would have been better perhaps if they had initially given it more thought. Then maybe the present result would have been the first result. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. We're here, it's now, let's finally do this and find out exactly what is right (not "who", "what" is right). I think we'll find that we are one step closer to a better encyclopedia.Wikipedian Sign LanguagePaine00:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments such as "this is an obvious rename need that should have taken place long ago" make me think you're re-arguing the move request here, instead discussing the close (you're not alone in this regard, several others favoring the endorse side have done so as well). A move review, however,is not the place to re-argue the original move.Calidum¤02:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good link, which should probably be read again and again by all participants in this MR and especially the opener of this MR. As for your concern, please read it again yourself:This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion,on the discussionandthe results.With all due respect, my opinion about the discussion has just as much validity here as every other part of my MR rationale, to include the part aboutendorsing.Wikipedian Sign LanguagePaine15:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little additional comment regarding those who would lump all "page movers" together and judge them by this single decision, those who are concerned that all page movers might be overstepping their bounds or that all page movers no longer feel constrained by the sensible advice ofWP:NAC,and are over-easily straying into controversial closes beyond their experience level. Page movers are not just nac closers – they are RMnac closers and are able to tackle the more complex closes that perhaps a non-page mover would not and should not tackle. This in my humble opinion is excellent experience for not just the closer of this complicated debate, and not just RMnac'ers or RMpmc'ers, but for all of us – all of us will take something home from this, hopefully something good and useful.Wikipedian Sign LanguagePaine00:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! Specialist page movers may actually be on average more qualified about best practices for article titling than generic admins who have a myriad other duties. —JFGtalk09:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen a not-insignificant increase in MRVs ending as overturn since the page mover right has been created and none of those overturns were to closures made by admins.Jenks24(talk)11:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot: I only see one such overturn since page movers were introduced in late May. We have also seen a higher number and a faster rate of handling move requests, which was the whole point of unbundling this right. —JFGtalk14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see one this month and one last month, the only closures that were overturned. I'm not saying that page mover was a mistake, far from it, but your argument that they are better closers than admins is not backed up by the data.Jenks24(talk)14:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps my words got ahead of my thoughts, let me clarify. I don't mean to infer any generalizations on the competence level of people who get involved in RMs; we expect the same standards of balanced judgment, care for process and civil behavior irrespective of whether they are admins or page movers. My hunch is that a small group of people (47 to date) who volunteered to specialize in adjudication of page titles and were vetted for this task are more likely to efficiently enforce policy and evolve the jurisprudence (although it's too soon to properly evaluate this hypothesis). The New York case, if it survives the move review, will be a beacon of clarity thanks to someone fresh having the guts to close this debate according to current title policy against entrenched opinions loudly advocating the status quo, and this looks like a net benefit to the encyclopedia. —JFGtalk15:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them were not given the right for that reason, take a look at the page mover section ofWP:RFPERMor just go through the talk space contribs of any of them – most have little to no RM experience. My take is that all 47 of those editors have the technical competence to use the tool correctly, my concern is that some (a minority) do not necessarily have the RM experience to close complex and detailed RMs (and why would they, it's not part of the vetting process). This case is actually a great example; a more solid close from someone with more experience would probably have held up at RM, but this is likely to be overturned/relisted.Jenks24(talk)15:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem,JFG,is that some of us had NO voice to advocate against this move because we were not aware of the discussion until the move had already been executed. There was no template for this at the top of the article, nor did I receive an invitation to join this conversation on my Talk page as I have in the past for other articles and matters. Not everyone routinely looks at article Talk pages or sometimes even at their own watchlists, especially if they're not suspecting that something is happening. Real life can be busy for all of us, but missing this conversation in no way diminishes what we would have had to say if we had only been informed about a potential move.Castncoot(talk)19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot:I understand your frustration at missing the move request and I see that you have made your points loud and clear in the move review. Let's trust the process to bring orderly closure to this longstanding and nuanced dispute. Incidentally, it is bad form tocomment on a closed discussion;I suggest that you self-revert. —JFGtalk19:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the Survey comment field for the first time today and misunderstood why it was editable. At exactly the same time I was working on relocating the comment out of the Survey field per your suggestion,Jenks24(talk) reverted me.Castncoot(talk)
Endorse– the closer obviously gave all the arguments careful consideration. But it doesn't look to me like he followed through with putting the disambig page at the base name as the close said; we should do that. Also agree with Ebonelm: lack of consensus on a primarytopic generally means there should not be a primarytopic.Dicklyon(talk)06:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, editorAndrewa(talk) has created the page[5],and I have added to it. It is still in essay format but nevertheless introduces the higher-level jurisdiction criterion (HLJC) as a legitimate determinant of primary topic. There appears to be a 3 or 4 to 1 ratio on this current page supporting at least relisting the move, with the most common reason cited being lack of proper notification that a move discussion was underway (particularly for such a major topic). I vote that we close out this discussion which is now bringing up no further fresh argument for either point of view and get the move reverted, and without prejudice, relisted if needed.Castncoot(talk)12:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did just think of a new argument opposing the move - namely, thatit's not just about population.As I've already stated above, 11+ million people live in New York who do not live in New York City. But New York also contains roughly 50,000 square miles of geographic features outside of New York City. I'll repeat: this is anencyclopedia,andit's not just about population.Castncoot(talk)15:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But on the other hand, if we're talking population comparison, when many people around the world think of NYC, particularly in the context of global cities, they are actually thinking of the metropolitan area rather than strictly the five boroughs... in particular Newark, Jersey City, Liberty airport, and all those places. TheNew York metropolitan area(which is interestingly not namedNew York City metropolitan area) has a total population of 23.7 million, which actually rather surprisingly exceeds the entire population of New York state. I guess the NJ and PA components of the NYC metro area outnumber the whole of upstate New York. —Amakuru(talk)15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(NJ, CT, and PA components; not that this trivia has any bearing on this discussion, given the different name and lack of ambiguity from "New York" in Wikipedia.:) )Castncoot(talk)19:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse.Many of the opposing editors merely stated they opposed because of past discussions or because they didn't think the nominator did the proper work to make the nomination. As perWP:CCC,this is not a policy-based argument for opposing. Many other opposers conceded that there's no primary topic but citedWP:DONTFIXIT,an essay, to support no change. Supporters successfully refuted withWP:PRIMARYTOPIC,so these opinions must also be discounted as contradicting our guidelines. Strength of arguments was firmly on the side of supporters here, and consensus is not a vote. This close is well within discretion. ~Rob13Talk22:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, not quite...nobody is arguing that the closer or nominator violated Wikipedia rules. What the vast majority on this page are saying though, is that the move was ill-advised from a practical as well as ethical standpoint and would not be good for the project.New York Cityis a progeny article ofNew Yorkas it is entrenched as one of theRegions of New York,which obviously makes the State the primary topic in this specific case. The City can easily be disambiguated from the State by virtue of it already having "City" in the title. Even move supporter Andrewa startedWikipedia:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterionapparently hoping that this would crystallize (in his mind, I am assuming, sorry for taking that liberty there)New Yorkas the primary topic; the point is that even he realizes that this would be ideal and common sense ([6]). Rather than losing thousands of viewers to a dab page daily, the common sense, intelligent thing to do would be to continue to direct New York to the State article as per the past 10+ years and have a clear hatnote directing to the City if needed, as has also been the case for years. What's happening now is destructive to the project.Castncoot(talk)22:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those arguments have no basis in policy or guidelines, though. There is no policy or guideline that indicates primary topic automatically goes to a larger entity when the other page is a subsection. If you believe thereshouldbe a guideline as such, then you can propose one, but that has no bearing on strength of arguments here. A move review evaluates whether the closer blatantly misinterpreted consensus, which is determined by quality of arguments rather than a vote. It's not a second venue to redo the move request. ~Rob13Talk19:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just shows that in this one case,New YorkmeansNew York State.There are other instances where it meansNew York Cityof course. Taken together, these suggest that there may be no primary meaning. It can't be both!
Please show me those other instances. In the meantime, this is the ultimate hard evidence, as the subject of the WikiProject itself, that "New York" is and has been Wikipedia's representation of the State. I think it will be difficult for anyone to refute this evidence credibly.Castncoot(talk)01:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another instance isThe Sidewalks of New York.HereNew YorkmeansNew York City.I've quoted many other instances of this in previous discussions with you, as have other editors, and this is arguably off-topic for this particular page anyway.Andrewa(talk)01:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the only instance you have shown, and a weak one at best, compared to the fundamental example I pointed out to you, which is the WikiProject's stance itself, and there are many more examples that relate to categories where "New York" is clearly defined as the State. (By the way, no one has ever argued that New York City can't casually be referred to as New York - that's exactly why we have the disambiguating hatnotes and clear ledes as appropriate.)Castncoot(talk)04:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another strange indent, your third at least on this page alone, do not fix it now please but continue to discuss atUser talk:Castncoot#Your edit at Talk:New York (disambiguation)where some of them are listed and the relevant guideline cited. I have given other examples previously whereNew Yorkmeans NYC but here is not the place to discuss their various merits or relevance.Andrewa(talk)05:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnI do see a super vote (imposition of a consensus). And no, the primary-topic thing was most definitely not hashed out to an actual end in that discussion.Alanscottwalker(talk)22:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on fairness and courtesy:I've just been rereadingWP:WikiProjectand recommend it to those who feel they have been unfairly or discourteously treated by the closer or others (many posts above). Note particularlyWikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors.....They have some tools to assist them, and in this instance failed to use them. Whose fault is that? If anyone has been mistreated, it's the closer, and IMO deserves an apologyeven ifthe move is overturned. They cannot be blamed for failing to observe unwritten rules that have never been tested against consensus, but that is exactly what several editors have suggested above. At the very least, those making such remarks should be asked to withdraw them.Andrewa(talk)04:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned on multiple levels here. First of all, the longer it takes for this extraordinarily misguided move to be reverted, theNew Yorkarticle continues to suffer accumulating harm unnecessarily in terms of a threat to its very existence, integrity, and solidity; and more ominously, the Wikipedia project continues to suffer an ongoing drain on its credibility with every passing day that a move overturn is delayed. The votes (overwhelmingly, and with vehemently expressed opposition), the hard evidence (above), and the procedural override which occurred in the context of a lack of consensus upon which to have closed the move, all support an immediate overturn of the move. I believe that any further delay is simply going to lead to unconstructive bickering and straying off topic. I would respectfully ask this move to be immediately reverted, and then relisted if necessary. If move supporters were actually confident in their viewpoint, they would have no problem with relisting, rather than trying to push this move through, lock the door behind it, and throw away the key.Castncoot(talk)04:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I feel that I must reiterate Jenks' 2 July admonishment to you above. The article is not "suffering accumulating harm", "its very existence" is not threatened (this is not a deletion discussion), nor "an ongoing drain on its credibility" – to say that New York is a (state) is not a lie. The way you are talking here, you would think I had moved it toNew Yawkas a dig at Downstate and LonG IslandaccentsPlease stop with this line of argument. Stick with the "higher-level entity or jurisdiction" argument, and any otherreasonablearguments you might think of. Thanks,wbm1058(talk)13:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the only one who wishes for a speedier conclusion! But some of us believe, just as strongly, that theNew York Statearticle should not be at thebase nameNew York.So for the moment we just have to follow the process... and it may not end with the MR, a relisting is possible, and I haveforeshadowedfurther possible action as well of course.Andrewa(talk)06:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've requested people, please stay on topic. Bizarre tangents carry no purpose. My arguments are solid, and the WikiProject and numerous Category pages confirm this and carry their own integrity and solidity that cannot be undermined or disrupted. And inescapable is the move having been closed on the basis of no legitimate consensus.Castncoot(talk)18:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of themove reviewof the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Syrian Civil War– Context: according to the page's revision history, the article has stood atSyrian Civil War,since 2013,until themove deemed uncontroversialhappened on May 14. Afterwards, the slightly abrupt RMresulted in a reversionto this current capitalized title. Themulti-discussionthat mostly happened on June 1 and June 2 both here in this MRV and on the article's talk essentially stopped around June 3, and it's now almost 3 weeks elapsed.
There is at least rough consensus in this MRV torelist.I believe this falls into MRV'stypical decision No. 6,which suggests reverting the article back toSyrian civil warbefore opening an RM, but given the long-standing title, I invokeWP:IAR,deem that disruptive for now, and propose that the new RM suggests the lowercase titleSyrian civil war,which was the RM that should have have been initiated on May 14. I recommend pinging folks that have been involved in the May 24 RM and this MRV since there's been some elapsed time. Please ping if there needs to be any clarifications.(non-admin closure)— Andy W.(talk ·ctb)09:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of themove reviewof the page above.Please do not modify it.
Not a supervote, the close rationale is a reflection of argument in the discussion. A tough call of rough consensus. Normally, I would call that "within admin discretion". "No consensus" and "rough consensus to move" I think are both defendable. The closer was not an admin, so any admin is welcome to revert, alter or support the close. NAC aside, I do not see reason to overturn, although I believe that some have strong views against generous assignment of proper names to events that are not very old, and these people may be able to point to policy on this matter. --SmokeyJoe(talk)07:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist,because the closer did not even attempt to ascertain consensus but merely expressed an opinion of their own; also, the closure was greatly premature. Why are we even letting non-admins mess around with stuff like that?Sandstein10:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein:Sorry but what? You're obviously notassuming good faithwith your comment and just attacking me with "Why are we even letting non-admins mess around with stuff like that?". It was not my opinion, if you were to read the whole discussion, you can see that the consistency in the naming was brought up a few times. Thanks,Anarchyte(work|talk)22:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I agree withAnarchyteon this, I think that the close message was a reasonable interpretation of the discussion at the time, but was closed far too early and might not have taken into account all the relevant policies. However,Sandstein's comment here is rather over-critical of the situation. Moreover, non-admins (like myself) that close move discussions help relieve the workload of busy admins and keep huge backlogs from building up, so I'm afraid I have to take this comment rather personally.InsertCleverPhraseHere23:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist but noWP:TROUTfor the closer- this was actually closed early, 06:40 on the 31st being less than a full seven days after 16:23 on the 24th, although possibly within the margin of acceptability. The close was probably a rough reading of the consensus in the discussion at the time, although it was very tight, and I'd have appreciated a much more thorough analysis of the weights of the for and against arguments. I think the "consistency with other Civil War" argument is some way below the argument that this simply isn't treated as a proper name in reliable sources, andMOS:CAPSsuggests that a concept must be "consistently capitalised" to be considered a proper name. Yet the close seems to pin the entire debate down to this consistency. I came in with a fresh oppose and explanation after the aforementioned early close, and I would have appreciated the closer reopening at that stage, to consider the fresh arguments.MOS:CAPSis a very key reason why this should be atSyrian civil war.Hence why I wouldn't blame the closer, and I can see why the original debate could be closed that way, I do think we should relist it, and the future closer should be very careful to consider what this is called in reliable sources, rather than relying on evidence-less assertions that "Syrian Civil War" is a proper name. —Amakuru(talk)13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseI haven't seen anyone counter@Vivaporius:'s point in the discussion. A new move should be started that includes ALL of the "Syrian Civil War" article titles that use Caps if we are going to do this right. -Knowledgekid87(talk)13:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The topic was debated at length a just two and half years ago- irrelevant, this is a fresh move discussion and two and a half years is plenty long enough
the evidence presented was that "Syrian Civil War" was a proper noun and that countless articles using "civil war" in the name were capitalized- that move hinged entirely on the assertion that all other civil war articles capitalise. But that is not very relevant. SeeWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.A lot of those other civil wars are incorrectly capitalised as well probably.
Media sites use the capitalized version- no they don't. Evidence was produced in this RM to show that most say "Syria's civil war", lower case.
it is commonly understood that capitalization of the term helps to distinguish it from the more generic "civil war"- who commonly understands this? The naming conventions atMOS:CAPSsay otherwise.
Currently, there is no rhyme or reason to the logic behind using "Syrian civil war" rather than "Syrian Civil War".- the rhyme and reason is that reliable sources don't capitalise this, so neither should we.
Unless this is just a common thing that happens, there is no convincing proof that using the non-capitalized version of the name makes any sense.- that's not how it works;Rwandan genocideis not a thing that happens often, but it apparently makes sense not to capitalize it there.
The subject has been beaten to death, and there is simply no reason not to use the proper version of the name.- no evidence that it is the proper version of the name.
You would be hard-pressed to explain why changing all civil wars throughout history to lower-case letters has any merit to it. Why this is even a discussion is beyond me.- we wouldn't change all civil wars, only those not treated as proper names by sources.
Overturn and relist:Too-early close, and obvious supervote backing a single editor's viewpoint, who is even cited by name in the close. The close (and the viewpoint it is based on) only takes account of one of theWP:CRITERIA,and it's the least important one. We also have other guidelines to consider, includingWP:NCCAPSandWP:MOSCAPS,which operate independently of the criteria (theWP:ATpolicy, mostly on aWP:COMMONNAMEbasis, tells us how to decide what the nameis– "Syrian civil war", "2016 Syrian conflict", etc., etc. – but not how to style it. That's determined by MOS, and by naming conventions guidelines based on it, like NCCAPS. — SMcCandlish☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist.I actually think the result was reasonable, but clearly there are people who have more to say about this and the discussion was closed early. The problem here for mine is that this article was moved via a technical request with no discussion, which should definitely not have been done when you see that there have been several RMs in the past discussing the capitalisation issue. So relist, let everyone have their full say, and then if there's no consensus make sure we default to "Syrian Civil War" as the previous consensus title.Jenks24(talk)17:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist– premature non-admin close with silly rationale; there was clearly no consensus for such a move, and a clear consensus for the opposite last time.Dicklyon(talk)19:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
