38:
900:
FWIW I like the fact that it mentions the August RfC explicitly, rather than hiding it behind a piped link with some other text as yours does. It also conveys all the information within two sentences of prose, no bullet points. Beyond that, though, I'm happy with anything that is clear and mentions
504:
This underlies the problems we have and can expect. While IMO it's not a
Condorcet, it poses some of the same challenges, and fortunately has the same solution... only unlike a true Condorcet, in this case a resolution is possible, and this RM is designed to achieve just that. It's a bit unfair to
159:
2. Compliance to official policy and guidelines. It has been established that the state is not the primary topic of New York. This article title therefore cannot be used for the article on the state. (And it should be noted that the guidelines appear to be correct in this, see reason 1
446:
And that is a core problem. We need to sell the idea that even if NYC is the PT, the proposed move is still an improvement. That will be a matter for the RM discussion, but we need to make the RM as NYCisPT-friendly as possible to get that discussion off to the best possible start.
112:
I don't think it needs expansion, and I don't think we can leave anything there out. There is much more that could be said and will be said I'm sure during the discussion, but keeping it very focussed at the start will help to keep it focussed to the end. I think. Other comments?
693:!votes, and I've seen other admins even defend them, pointing out that it does no great harm - I may even have done so myself at times when such !votes were criticised and probably will in the future. I was assuming it could be ignored here too, and on reflection that's a
735:
I don't know, your version is certainly more succinct and clear than the earlier version on the /Proposed move page. Just can't help wondering what is taking JFG so long with their draft. That editor is so great with proposals! Hope all is well with them!
760:
I share your concern about JFG, and your assessment. As I have said before, when most editors and I disagree, I look first for flaws in their thinking, but with JFG (and a few others) it is more productive to first look for the flaws in my own.
314:
933:
I also think it's overlinked, and that most of the examples would be better saved for discussion time. We only need the briefest of justification of claims in the rationale. Further evidence belongs in the replies if they are challenged.
151:
Many mislinkings are created by editors who assume that the destination of a wikilink to New York is the city. Correcting these mislinkings occupies a large amount of editor time which would otherwise be available to improve the
167:
Primary topic: It has been suggested that the primary topic of New York is New York City. A second RM is proposed after an interval of time still to be determined (but one year has been suggested) to determine this
235:. That may be where we went wrong in last year's RM: we gave the impression that evicting the state article was our main aim, when in fact it was just a side effect of getting a better page onto that title.
509:
that his name is generally associated with a way in which voting (and !voting) systems can fail. His research was actually about how they can work, including in situations exactly like the one we have here!
304:
Yes, keep all of our discussions close to hand, that one in particular, it's probably the best of the potential cheatsheets we have. I think (and hope) that we are now well armed with replies to previous
310:
483:
changes the sense in an important way... but not my reply. Both senses are important and valid observations (yes, I know you didn't intend the first sense but others are in exactly this position IMO).
1045:
850:
Consequently, the existing disambiguation page must be moved to the base title "New York", and the state article requires a qualifier to distinguish it from the city and other uses of the term. A
147:
Many readers search on New York wanting New York City, and load a large unwanted page as a result. The DAB loads in a far shorter time, particularly important for mobile and low bandwidth readers
170:
is not part of the rationale proper. But it is included in the rationale because it is an essential part of the proposal, and like the rationale should not be edited after the RM is opened.
62:
If this draft is accepted, then we copy and paste (almost, I recommend that we re-expand the template using subst:requested move all over again just to prevent any unforeseen glitches) to
833:
being often called "New York", and to a lesser extent due to the existence of numerous other topics titled "New York", including songs, books, films, ships, sports teams, the
1007:
This proposed move benefits those looking for NYS, not just those looking for NYC. It's so obvious when you look at the case presented there. Lateral thinking at its best.
710:? The intention is that if I'm the only one who nominates (happy to be but prefer not), I'll just delete the new subsection and move my comment (minus the !vote) to the
851:
588:
At the risk of batting for the opposition, is it fair to suggest a moratorium only if the RM succeeds? I wouldn't want us to be accused of holding a
689:
is a request rather than a ruling, and is often violated without any criticism being voiced, ie ignored completely. I always turn a blind eye to
132:
The order of the points made in the rationale was questioned (I forget where exactly and by whom) and I am only just getting around to replying.
757:
And that preparation is much appreciated. In most RMs it would not matter. But in this one it was really leading with my chin. Good catch.
79:
I'm quite prepared to propose it, but I'd like to hear from you first, in fairness to you and also to get the best possible result.
914:
I can make some specific criticisms of the early one. I would add a link to the specific guideline that says the ambiguous title
822:
243:
337:
Thanks, that gives the reader some background. Although you've linked to another relevant part of the same page, I think
660:, this is just a gentle reminder of the 4th bullet point under "When participating, please consider the following:" at
1001:
834:
638:
I can argue it both ways, but on balance I think it's better. As I said in reply, discussion really belongs in the
200:
I may add something similar when the discussion goes live, but I think it's better left out of the proposal itself.
343:
The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term.
786:
747:
675:
249:
562:
proposed move, and seek consensus on that, not predicting either way how the foreshadowed second RM will go.
867:
685:
That's a good point. I want to give others the option of co-nominating. And the instruction on not !voting
48:
879:
842:
778:
739:
667:
264:
231:
That's certainly brief and to the point. I like the emphasis on providing the best destination for
544:
As I said in reply there, I think that this is the most important single issue in framing this RM.
871:
44:
341:
is also worth adding. That has the clearest statement I've seen in an established policy that
23:
1053:
1030:
1012:
987:
962:
939:
923:
883:
863:
826:
766:
723:
647:
616:
574:
515:
452:
380:
338:
322:
217:
175:
118:
84:
17:
957:
the RfC, and removing the bullet points. I don't think it's an improvement. Other comments?
875:
855:
597:
421:
354:
272:
838:
253:
732:
Yes, I'm not all that big on nominator exclusion either – just wanted you to be prepared.
1057:
1034:
1016:
991:
966:
943:
927:
790:
770:
751:
727:
679:
651:
620:
601:
578:
519:
456:
425:
384:
358:
326:
276:
221:
179:
122:
88:
859:
547:
I think the balance is about right here already. Interested in other views of course.
98:
This page was only intended as a braindump to help me to comment on the proposal that
830:
63:
1049:
1026:
1008:
983:
958:
935:
919:
893:
762:
719:
661:
657:
643:
612:
570:
511:
448:
376:
371:
But is that applicable to this move? We are not basing our argument on there being
318:
213:
171:
114:
80:
907:
Both of these points could be incorporated into my draft, but interested to see
632:
593:
589:
417:
350:
315:
Knowledge:List of New York City and New York State move discussion page sections
283:
268:
208:
I'm of two minds on this but think on balance it should be part of the proposal.
70:
as proposers. Existing signatures would be removed and replaced by fresh ones.
829:
cannot be the primary topic for the term "New York", due to the prominence of
401:
Fair enough. Personally I'm neutral on whether NYC is PT. I don't think I'd
205:
The section foreshadowing a further RM on PT has been moved to the rationale.
982:
suggestion yet that I haven't adopted into the current version of the draft.
66:, and as many as are willing (and who agree 100% with the rationale) sign to
506:
908:
99:
73:
664:. A nominator is asked to refrain from a bulleted "Support" rationale.
866:
as a destination title. The change will ease navigation and search for
162:
refers to the first. It is more logical for it to therefore follow it.
189:
On reflection I have removed all content from the discussion section.
142:
comes before the second because the second refers back to the first.
102:
is preparing when it emerges... part of my homework while waiting.
76:, does this help? Does it look at all like what you have in mind?
311:
Category:New York City and New York State move discussion pages
32:
1046:
User talk:Andrewa/Things to discuss during the NYRM July 2017
149:
comes first because readers are our bottom line. The second
975:
was an improvement, but not the bullet point removal IMO.
408:
the subtlety that one can advocate a dab in preference to
1002:
Talk:New York/Proposed move#Another reason to think about
541:
and the discussion that led to it are very relevant IMO.
870:, and will bring consistency with similar cases such as
267:
handy as a cheat sheet for when the opposition arrives.
1022:
972:
950:
903:
811:
707:
636:
608:
538:
480:
296:
287:
206:
198:
194:
106:
375:, because if we do, we lose some significant support.
135:
The main section is of course the rationale itself.
911:'s latest draft before doing any more work on mine.
554:the claim that NYC is the PT. This RM should claim
309:arguments. That's most of the reason I created
550:My conviction is that we as nominators should
806:Bullet points and explicit mention of the RfC
642:section, but realistically this is unlikely.
8:
978:The removal of the bullet points is now the
852:July 2016 discussion on preferred qualifiers
1044:I've started a personal cheatsheet, see
918:. I'd also tidy up some of the grammar.
631:I have added these on the suggestion of
416:without necessarily opposing NYC as PT.
154:is about editors, not readers directly.
814:(unfortunately a redlink in the post):
849:
820:
342:
47:, where sanity finally prevailed, and
157:As stated above, the second argument
7:
662:WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move
145:Within this, the first bullet point
854:has shown overwhelming support for
558:that Knowledge will be improved by
109:turned out exceptionally well IMO.
706:What do you (and others) think of
295:The second may be also covered by
31:
1040:Things to discuss during the NYRM
845:and a bunch of eponymous cities.
36:
290:the first exactly as suggested.
24:User talk:Andrew/NYRM July 2017
373:no primary topic for that term
261:Refutation of counterarguments
140:1. Improved reader experience.
51:. Kept for historical reasons.
1:
997:Another reason to think about
197:has been removed completely.
714:section. I think that's as
627:Support and Oppose sections
1073:
1004:makes an excellent point.
835:New York metropolitan area
552:neither support nor oppose
297:wikilinks I've been adding
259:We can manage without the
248:Brief quote or summary of
579:23:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
385:09:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
359:08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
327:00:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
277:00:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
238:I would consider adding:
227:Things to consider adding
222:18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
123:18:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
89:01:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
1058:21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1035:21:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1017:21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
992:22:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
967:21:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
944:23:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
928:17:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
791:18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
771:13:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
752:10:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
728:05:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
680:13:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
652:02:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
621:02:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
602:00:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
520:16:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
457:03:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
426:00:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
299:. What do you think now?
180:04:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
825:has concluded that the
263:section but I'll keep
185:The discussion section
128:Order of the arguments
534:Focus, balance and PT
49:User:Andrewa/NYRM2018
880:Georgia (U.S. state)
843:Province of New York
775:Ditto, definitely.
565:And I think this is
347:Foo (disambiguation)
195:section on Condorcet
1021:Couldn't resist...
971:On reflection, the
138:The first argument
872:Washington (state)
718:as I can make it.
282:Both good points,
165:The final section
884:Georgia (country)
864:State of New York
841:, the historical
827:State of New York
793:
788:
754:
749:
682:
677:
250:WP:Disambiguation
55:
54:
22:(Redirected from
18:User talk:Andrewa
1064:
876:Washington, D.C.
856:New York (state)
789:
785:
781:
750:
746:
742:
678:
674:
670:
330:
329:
40:
39:
33:
27:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1042:
999:
901:the key points!
839:New York County
823:August 2016 RfC
808:
780:Paine Ellsworth
779:
741:Paine Ellsworth
740:
697:bad assumption.
669:Paine Ellsworth
668:
629:
586:
536:
229:
187:
130:
96:
60:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1070:
1068:
1041:
1038:
998:
995:
947:
946:
916:cannot be used
891:
890:
889:
888:
860:New York State
847:
807:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
758:
733:
701:
700:
699:
698:
691:support as nom
687:support as nom
628:
625:
624:
623:
585:
582:
535:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
364:
363:
362:
361:
332:
331:
301:
300:
292:
291:
257:
256:
246:
228:
225:
210:
209:
202:
201:
186:
183:
129:
126:
95:
92:
59:
56:
53:
52:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1069:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1003:
996:
994:
993:
989:
985:
981:
976:
974:
969:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
945:
941:
937:
932:
931:
930:
929:
925:
921:
917:
912:
910:
905:
904:
902:
897:
895:
887:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
848:
846:
844:
840:
836:
832:
831:New York City
828:
824:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
813:
810:Referring to
805:
792:
787:
784:
783:
782:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
759:
756:
755:
753:
748:
745:
744:
743:
734:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
704:
703:
702:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:
681:
676:
673:
672:
671:
663:
659:
656:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
603:
599:
595:
591:
583:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
563:
561:
557:
553:
548:
545:
542:
540:
533:
521:
517:
513:
508:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
458:
454:
450:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:New York City
411:
407:
404:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
303:
302:
298:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
255:
251:
247:
245:
241:
240:
239:
236:
234:
226:
224:
223:
219:
215:
207:
204:
203:
199:
196:
192:
191:
190:
184:
182:
181:
177:
173:
169:
163:
161:
155:
153:
148:
143:
141:
136:
133:
127:
125:
124:
120:
116:
110:
108:
103:
101:
93:
91:
90:
86:
82:
77:
75:
71:
69:
65:
64:talk:New York
57:
50:
46:
43:Obsoleted by
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
1043:
1020:
1006:
1000:
979:
977:
970:
954:
948:
915:
913:
906:
899:
898:
892:
809:
777:
776:
738:
737:
715:
711:
708:this version
694:
690:
686:
666:
665:
639:
630:
607:Good point.
587:
566:
564:
559:
555:
551:
549:
546:
543:
537:
413:
409:
405:
402:
372:
346:
306:
260:
258:
237:
232:
230:
211:
188:
166:
164:
158:
156:
152:encyclopedia
150:
146:
144:
139:
137:
134:
131:
111:
107:this section
104:
97:
78:
72:
67:
61:
58:Where to now
973:RfC mention
569:important.
479:Agree that
406:appreciated
349:qualifier.
812:this draft
712:Discussion
640:Discussion
590:neverendum
584:Moratorium
403:appreciate
345:, i.e. no
339:WP:DABNAME
265:my attempt
212:Comments?
896:observed
539:This edit
507:Condorcet
481:this edit
286:. I have
94:Rationale
1023:added it
951:had a go
410:New York
288:actioned
254:WP:ATDAB
242:Link to
233:New York
45:NYRM2017
1050:Andrewa
1027:Andrewa
1009:Andrewa
984:Andrewa
959:Andrewa
953:at not
949:I have
936:Andrewa
920:Andrewa
894:Amakuru
868:readers
763:Andrewa
720:Andrewa
716:vanilla
658:Andrewa
644:Andrewa
613:Andrewa
571:Andrewa
512:Andrewa
449:Andrewa
377:Andrewa
319:Andrewa
214:Andrewa
172:Andrewa
160:above.)
115:Andrewa
81:Andrewa
68:support
955:hiding
633:BD2412
594:Certes
418:Certes
351:Certes
307:oppose
284:Certes
269:Certes
244:PT RFC
168:issue
16:<
1054:talk
1031:talk
1013:talk
988:talk
980:only
963:talk
940:talk
924:talk
878:and
767:talk
724:talk
695:very
648:talk
617:talk
609:Done
598:talk
575:talk
567:very
560:this
556:only
516:talk
453:talk
422:talk
381:talk
355:talk
323:talk
313:and
273:talk
252:and
218:talk
193:The
176:talk
119:talk
105:But
85:talk
909:JFG
882:vs
874:vs
862:or
858:vs
821:An
100:JFG
74:JFG
1056:)
1048:.
1033:)
1025:.
1015:)
990:)
965:)
942:)
926:)
837:,
769:)
726:)
650:)
635:.
619:)
611:.
600:)
592:.
577:)
518:)
455:)
424:)
412:→
383:)
357:)
325:)
317:.
275:)
220:)
178:)
121:)
87:)
1052:(
1029:(
1011:(
986:(
961:(
938:(
922:(
886:.
765:(
722:(
646:(
615:(
596:(
573:(
514:(
451:(
420:(
379:(
353:(
321:(
271:(
216:(
174:(
117:(
83:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.