New York (state) Disambig‑class

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles Disambig This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

uh... is manhattan seriously ever taken to be "new york"?--160.39.195.88 23:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe by tourists --Jason McHuff 06:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Talk:The Five Boroughs has some discussion about "New York" that might be interesting/useful. Jason McHuff (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New York which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 07:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested [1] that the base name New York should be a broad-concept article. I think this has much to recommend it.

Rather than start a page at Talk:New York, which might complicate future moves and/or get lost in them, I suggest we discuss that proposal here.

If we could form a strong consensus in favour of it, that would make much of the current tangled and heated discussion at MR and elsewhere irrelevant, of course. We could then invoke WP:SNOW and end those discussions.

Related questions are:

• When should we actually start writing such an article? My feeling is, asap, but we need to avoid (more) hurt feelings from people who feel they should have been consulted first.
• What to call it, if we start writing it before we have sufficient support to use the base name? Category:Broad-concept articles doesn't seem to have any suitable disambiguators.

Comments please! Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best call it Draft:New York while working on it.

I like the idea but I feel that it might trigger even more heated discussions… Meanwhile disambiguation of New York links in the encyclopedia needs full attention regardless of the outcome of the move review: a manual sampling of 147 such pages today revealed 61 articles meaning New York City, 67 meaning New York State and 19 which had both kinds (see my edits of the day for the full list), so there were 54% of New York links pointing the wrong way (incidentally proving the lack of a primary topic). We are looking for frequent patterns in the pages to deploy bots and help the cleanup. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, replies below. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-ups

To avoid allegations of canvassing, and also avoid both duplication of effort and (more important) omissions, just list any invitations you issue to join this discussion below. A link to a diff is ideal, or just make personal invites here. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

User:Antepenultimate, this was suggested by your post (diff above)... I think it's an excellent idea, your further input is invited. Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the ping, but I just spent about eight hours on the road and am dead tired. One thing I'll quickly note is that this isn't exactly what I was thinking - I was more suggesting that the state article was already functioning somewhat as a "broad-concept article", due to the same-named city being a subset of the state and therefore covered within the state article. I realize that's a non-standard interpretation of the policy with much room for discussion (particularly since the entirety of the state topic is covered, while only a summary for the city is presented). This proposal is interesting, and I'll think about it, perhaps I'll join in a bit tomorrow evening after work. Thanks - Antepenultimate (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MR discussion Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject New York Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject New York City Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

We could eventually have a poll, but I'd prefer to leave it informal for now. Of course that doesn't stop you from indicating whether you support or oppose the proposal, if you are ready to do that. Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the top-level section above:

Best call it Draft:New York while working on it. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Excellent suggestion. I'd forgotten about the draft namespace. Andrewa (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Drafts for more specific instructions. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea but I feel that it might trigger even more heated discussions… — JFG ^talk 00:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Agree, but that's not a particularly strong reason to avoid this course, it could even be argued that it's a reason to weakly favour it, to avoid encouraging such unproductive debate. Andrewa (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile disambiguation of New York links in the encyclopedia needs full attention regardless of the outcome of the move review: a manual sampling of 147 such pages today revealed 61 articles meaning New York City, 67 meaning New York State and 19 which had both kinds (see my edits of the day for the full list), so there were 54% of New York links pointing the wrong way (incidentally proving the lack of a primary topic). We are looking for frequent patterns in the pages to deploy bots and help the cleanup. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC) This suggestion would immediately reduce the impact on readers of those mislinkings. Yes, incidentally the evidence against the state being primary has always been persuasive IMO, and is just growing. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that logic is backward.... Castncoot (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the MR: A broad concept page, while noble in proposal, would be impractical and likely just a glorified dab page. Castncoot (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Disagree, obviously! Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the MR: I just realized now that we already have WP:WikiProject New York and WP:WikiProject New York City. Again, this goes to show that "New York" stands for the State as the primary topic. A broad concept page, while noble in proposal, would be impractical and likely just a glorified dab page. Castncoot (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just shows that in this one case, New York means New York State. There are other instances where it means New York City of course. Taken together, these suggest that there may be no primary meaning. It can't be both!

I'll copy your last sentence to the relevant page. Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]